Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Departmental Staff

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what increase or decrease in staff there was in the Department under his control in the period 16th October, 1964, to 15th October, 1965; and what increase or decrease he anticipates in the period up to 15th April, 1966.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): The Department was not set up until 21st October 1964. The staff numbered 277 on 16th October, 1965, and I expect there will be an increase of 78 by 15th April, 1966. These figures include the staffs of the National Parks Commission and the Water Resources Board.

Mr. Onslow: Can the Minister give any reason for this increase of nearly 30 per cent. in the next six months?

Mr. Willey: Yes, Sir. This is largely due to the work that will be required in the setting up of the Land Commission, the work of the National Parks Commission and the Water Resources Board.

Commons Registration

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether he will set up a central advisory committee to assist in co-ordinating the process of commons registration.

Mr. Willey: No, Sir. I do not think that this is necessary. I have from the outset been in close touch with the various bodies affected; and I shall keep

in touch with them while registration is going on. These arrangements are working smoothly and effectively.

Mr. Hill: Would it not be helpful to have even an informal group of advisers, consisting of those most expert in this matter, in order to collate the experience and knowledge of procedures that have already been reached?

Mr. Willey: As I have said, I do not think that it is necessary at the moment. One awaits the report of the Nuffield Trust inquiry, and one can look again at this matter in the light of that report.

National Parks and Preservation of the Countryside

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources when he proposes to make a statement on the future of national parks and the preservation of the countryside.

Mr. Willey: With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I propose to give an indication of the lines on which the Government are thinking to the Conference on the Countryside in 1970, which is meeting later this month. We can then take account of the results of the Conference, and of the informal consultations which have been opened with representatives of the local authorities, before submitting proposals of Parliament.

Transactions in Land

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Land and Natural. Resources what will be the relevant date or dates in his proposed legislation after which transactions in land will be subject to liability to a levy, and which will render the land concerned subject to the possibility of subsequent compulsory purchase by the proposed Land Commission.

Mr. Willey: The Bill will provide for a day to be fixed by Order, after which liability for levy will arise on transactions in land and the Commission will be able to exercise its powers of compulsory purchase. I expect this to be towards the end of next year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear, as the White Paper certainly does not, whether,


when that liability arises—as I understand it, on the day which he intends to appoint—it will bite on transactions, planning permissions or sales which take place before it?

Mr. Willey: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that point. He has asked for the date, and I have given it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what is his estimate of the annual yield of the levy of certain dealings in land foreshadowed in Command Paper 2771.

Mr. Willey: I estimate that when the scheme is fully operating, the gross yield will be about £80 million per year, on the basis of a 40 per cent. levy.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How much of that £80 million does the right hon. Gentleman estimate will be passed on to the consumers—the purchasers or lessors of houses—as a passing on of the charge?

Mr. Willey: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the major purpose of this levy is to relieve the burden of the high cost of building.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But is the Minister aware that, whatever the purpose may be, it is everyone's experience of taxation that it tends to be passed on to the consumer? Will he, therefore, apply his mind to my original Question as to how much of this revenue he thinks he will get will, in fact, be paid ultimately by those who buy, let or rent houses?

Mr. Willey: We have made it quite clear that we intend to relieve, as set out in the White Paper, by means of concessionary disposals for housing and by lifting the burden on the local authorities.

Mr. Hay: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what right of appeal or arbitration he proposes to set up for local or public authorities, housing associations or individuals against the sale price or ground rent demanded by the Land Commission on sale to such bodies or individuals.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): None, Sir.

Mr. Hay: That is a rather surprising reply. Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the Land Commission in these

circumstances will be in a position in which it could literally hold to ransom not only private individuals, but local authorities and other authorities? Is it not necessary that some kind of right of appeal or arbitration such as I have suggested in the Question should be provided? Will the hon. Gentleman look at this again?

Mr. Skeffington: My right hon. Friend is always prepared to look at anything again, but the hon. Member, with his great experience in these matters, knows that the price is adjudicated on by the district valuer, and in the light of very considerable experience, not only of transactions in recent years but under the 1947 Act, we find that no difficulty has been experienced and do not expect any difficulty now.

Forestry Commission

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether he will make a statement on his appointment of members of the reconstituted Forestry Commission.

Mr. Willey: The appointment of Mr. L. A. W. Jenkins to be Chairman of the re-organised Forestry Commission was announced during the Commons Debate on the Seventh Report from the Estimates Committee on 14th June.
The full-time Commissioners are Sir Henry Beresford-Peirse, Mr. M. Compton, Mr. Andrew Watt, and Mr. J. A. Dickson. The part-time Commissioners are Major Sir William Strang Steel, Mr. T. Taylor, Mr. E. G. Davies, Mr. F. Sellers, and Lord Carlisle.

Mr. Digby: I welcome the emphasis on the Forestry Commission as a timber seller in the new set-up, but can the Minister say whether it is intended to pay a salary, or take powers to pay a salary, to part-time members of the Commission?

Mr. Willey: We have no such present intention. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations on this subject I will, of course, consider them.

Leasehold Enfranchisement (New Towns)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether he will seek to extend leasehold enfranchisement to include new towns.

Mr. Skeffington: My right hon. Friend will be presenting the Government's proposals about leasehold in due course.

Mr. Allason: When he does so, will the Minister take into account the very strong desires of people moving into new towns to own their houses? Now that the Minister is responsible for leasehold enfranchisement, will he over-ride the queasiness of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and be prepared to use all his energy to ensure that leasehold enfranchisement is extended as widely as possible?

Mr. Skeffington: We certainly know the hon. Member's interest in this question and it is one which will not be overlooked by my right hon. Friend in presenting his proposals.

Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and the Land Commission

Mr. Hay: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will provide an arbitration tribunal in the event of disagreement between the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster and the Land Commission on the sum to be paid in lieu of levy.

Mr. Skeffington: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend foresees no need for this.

Mr. Hay: Can the hon. Gentleman say why there is going to be no need for this? Is it not quite feasible and likely that there will be severe wrangles between the highly respectable bodies mentioned in the Question and this rather ridiculous Commission?

Mr. Skeffington: May I remind the hon. Member that a similar situation might have arisen in connection with development charge in 1947 but no difficulty was experienced between the bodies mentioned in the Question and the Government of that time. We do not anticipate any difficulty now. It is inconceivable that there should be the sort of difficulty which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will my hon. Friend try to curb the desire on the part of the Opposition to provide more jobs for the legal boys?

Land (Development)

Mr. Hendry: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what criteria will be employed for deciding if an area of land is suitable for development, and when the time is opportune; and by what body or bodies the decision will be made.

Mr. Skeffington: Local planning authorities or the Ministers responsible for town and country planning will decide whether land is suitable for development on the same criteria as they do at present.

Mr. Hendry: I find that very difficult to understand. Will the Minister please try to reconcile that with paragraph 17 of the White Paper by which apparently land is to be acquired in anticipation of requirements? What sort of procedure is to be adopted for that? Is the White Paper actually a mask for wholesale nationalisation of land?

Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps without impertinence I may ask the hon. Member to reread paragraph 17 of the White Paper. There is nothing there which suggests that the normal procedure for deciding planning permission and bringing forward plans for development is changed. The position is as it was.

Local Authorities (Development Levy)

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will state his reasons for exempting local authorities from payment of the development levy on comprehensive development and town development.

Mr. Willey: Increases in value realised by schemes of comprehensive development and town development are created almost entirely by the activities of the local authority itself and the benefits should therefore accrue directly to the local community.

Mr. Murton: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in fact if a public body were to sell any land no levy would be raised on it if it were sold to private interests?

Mr. Willey: That is another question.

Land Development (Levy)

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will state his reasons for exempting Crown interests in land from payment of the development levy.

Mr. Willey: The levy would be in effect a payment by the Exchequer to itself, and the extra work would not be justified.

Mr. Murton: Is it not a fact that Crown properties do in fact pay a form of rate?

Mr. Willey: That is another question.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources after what period of time the rate of levy on development value described in Command Paper No. 2771 will be raised from 40 per cent. to 45 per cent., and to 50 per cent.; and what figure he proposes to fix as a maximum.

Mr. Willey: Decisions on all these questions will be taken at the appropriate time, in the circumstances then prevailing.

Mr. Allason: When "the appropriate time" comes, will the Minister consider the difficulty which will occur if these periods are too close together? For example, suppose a man is asked to treat and decides that he would prefer compulsory purchase procedure to take place. That usually takes a considerable time. What would happen supposing the intervals were put too close together and thereby a man was penalised because he exercised his democratic rights of going to compulsory purchase?

Mr. Speaker: That supplementary question was too long.

Mr. Willey: As the White Paper says, they will be reasonably short intervals.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources under what circumstances developers owning land with planning permission for purposes other than housing on 22nd September, 1965, or being under a contract to purchase on that date, will be liable to pay a levy.

Mr. Willey: Where, after the appointed day, the developer starts development, or

disposes of the land without doing so, and the value when he starts, or the price which he receives, exceeds what he paid for the land.

Mr. Costain: Will the Minister explain how he is to allocate these various funds? How does he propose to separate, for instance, the question of value of land for shops and for houses?

Mr. Willey: I should have thought that what I have said was quite plain to the hon. Member.

Land Commission

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if the staff of the Land Commission will include architects and surveyors.

Mr. Skeffington: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Land Commission will have whatever professional staff is necessary for its functions.

Mr. Costain: Will the hon. Gentleman say from where he is to get this professional staff in view of the chaos in the industry at the moment due to licensing proposals?

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member is well aware of the situation which has existed for some considerable time in relation to professional bodies, and no doubt he has made sound suggestions to put it right. Where there is a shortage of skilled staff it is essential that they should be wisely and properly used in bodies of this character.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if the Land Commission will build houses for sale on land acquired by it by compulsory purchase; how extensive these activities will be; and if the Commission will contract with private enterprise building firms.

Mr. Skeffington: The Land Commission will be able, with the consent of Ministers, to provide houses for sale on concessionary terms where such bodies as housing associations, co-operative groups or local authorities are not available to meet this need. The extent of the Commission's activities in this field cannot therefore be forecast at present, but in so far as the Commission does build houses for sale, it will not be debarred


from contracting with private firms where that is the most efficient method.

Mr. Webster: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, if the State is to trade, the principle of a willing seller and a willing buyer will be broached by compulsory purchase and, if the State is to speculate, there will be widespread anxiety in the country? We on this side of the House will want to look at this matter very seriously.

Mr. Skeffington: The information which has so far reached me is rather in the opposite direction.

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources by what means he intends local authorities to benefit financially from the operations of the proposed Land Commission.

Mr. Willey: As the White Paper indicates, it is the intention of the Government to ensure that the gain to the Exchequer from the operations of the Land Commission will in one way or another be reflected in the new arrangements under which local authorities will receive financial assistance from the Government. I must therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to await the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government of the results of the review of local government finance.

Mr. Jones: Has the Minister made any speculation yet as to what extent such a reduction will affect council house rents?

Mr. Willey: Of course I have considered these matters, but the hon. Member will realise that we have to await the statement which will be made on local government finance.

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what powers of entry will be given to the proposed Land Commission in respect of the leases granted for 999 years; and what provisions will be made for future comprehensive development in the light of the length of such leases.

Mr. Skeffington: The Land Commission will be empowered to buy out the remainder of the lease by agreement or, if necessary, by a compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Jones: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say that if the freehold is

allowed to be acquired by the local authority and if the land is not maintained by the local authority the Government will insist that the freehold shall pass to the subsequent developer?

Mr. Skeffington: I think I ought to have notice of that question rather than answer off the cuff.

Professional Valuers

Mrs. Thatcher: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what estimate he has made of the number of professional valuers required to perform the duties outlined in Command Paper No. 2771; and what steps he proposes to take to secure their services.

Mr. Skeffington: Any valuations required will be the responsibility of the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue, but my right hon. Friend is confident that they will be able to manage.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue is already very short of valuers and that this year they have had a lot of additional duties put on them? Will he give the House an assurance that he will not introduce this levy until such time as he is satisfied that there are a sufficient number of people properly to assess the quantum, bearing in mind that in certain cases there is no appeal against the quantum?

Mr. Skeffington: My right hon. Friend is aware that there will be a burden on the Valuation Office, but the amount of valuation work in our scheme is to be kept to a minimum. For example, actual market prices will be used as far as possible. So far we have no indications to suggest that the Valuation Office will not be able to deal with these matters.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's refusal to answer the Question as to how many valuers will be required mean either that he does not know or that he will not tell us?

Mr. Skeffington: The precise number of valuers required at this stage is certainly not known, but a general estimate has been made and it was in the light of that


that I gave my Answer. I shall not seek to deny the House any information that I have.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Customs Hut, Fermanagh (Tender)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why the lowest tender for the erection of a Customs hut at Mullan, Fermanagh, Northern Ireland, was not accepted.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell): I am not bound to accept the lowest tender; and there are other reasons besides price for accepting a tender.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister give us an assurance that one of the reasons why the lowest tender was turned down was not that the contractor happened to be a Roman Catholic? As so many curious things happen in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend assure us that in future contracts there will be no discrimination against Roman Catholic contractors?

Mr. Pannell: I have no reason to assume that there has been, but I have written to my hon. Friend about this and would still be prepared to discuss it with him.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what increase or decrease in staff there was in the department under his control in the period 16th October, 1964 to 15th October, 1965; and what increase or decrease he anticipates in the period up to 15th April, 1966.

Mr. C. Pannell: A decrease by about 850 between October, 1964 and October, 1965. I am not yet able to forecast the change up to April, 1966.

Mr. Onslow: Can the Minister tell the House why this disappointing reply reveals his inability—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—to reduce his staff by the 2,000 which he forecast six months ago?

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with anything. In April, 1965, I said that I hoped to reduce the

staff by 2,000, but since then my Ministry has had to cope with an increasing load of work, both at home and overseas. This work can be done either by contract or by direct labour, and we have used rather more direct labour than I expected. The level of the industrial staff tends to fluctuate and is affected by seasonal changes. However, we have done rather better than our predecessors.

Naval Base, Holy Loch

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what has been the total cost to date to public funds of the naval base of Holy Loch.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): None, Sir.

Palace of Westminster

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he has yet formulated any proposals to provide additional accommodation for the improvement of working conditions for Lobby and Gallery correspondents.

Mr. C. Pannell: As the hon. Member will have observed, building is going on in Star Court. When this is completed and an allocation of rooms made, we will be in a better position to consider accommodation for correspondents.

Mr. Marten: Has the Minister any hope of improving on this?

Mr. Pannell: This is really not a matter for me. The House, I believe, proposes to set up a special Committee. It will not be done strictly under my Department. The Committee of the House will make its own allocation.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will the Minister press ahead as hard as he can on this question? Will he bear in mind that the new Second Reading Committee may impose an additional strain on the Gallery calling for extra staff in already woefully overcrowded conditions?

Mr. Pannell: Yes, but I am conscious of the increasing strain that is continually borne by Members and I must keep my priorities right.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works


if he will state the cost of the pest control treatment of the outside fabric of the Palace of Westminster, the estimated time during which such treatment will remain effective, and the reason for such treatment.

Mr. C. Pannell: Treatment cost £900 and will last three years. The hon. Member must be the only Member of the House who does not appreciate the reason for it.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Where have all the pigeons gone? If the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in banishing them from London, is he not afraid that action may be taken by Mary Poppins?

Mr. Pannell: I can only say this: I expected another supplementary question. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was concerned about cruelty to dumb animals. I can only tell him that I am advised that the pigeons get a sort of neurosis. It does not harm the pigeons, but I am told that the birds are repelled by a sense of insecurity on landing.

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the reason for the delay in completion of the second part of the roof scheme over the Lords end of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. C. Pannell: There has been no delay, except for the allocation of the Fees Office.

Mr. Cooke: Can the Minister tell us when this accommodation will be available for the use of hon. Members?

Mr. Pannell: It will be ready for occupation at the beginning of December.

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he expects to complete the Star Court building; and what provisional allocation of new space has been made.

Mr. C. Pannell: By the end of next year. The allocation is a matter presumably for the proposed new House of Commons Services Committee.

Admiralty House

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works who is occupying Admiralty House; and what has been the cost of alterations thereto.

Mr. C. Pannell: No one, Sir. I answered a smiliar Question on 10th and 17th May.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What are the Government's plans for Admiralty House?

Mr. Pannell: I have already stated those in answer to a previous Question, but the allocation is not a matter for me.

Building Licences

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what staff he anticipates will be necessary to deal with the forthcoming building licences proposals; and where they will be accommodated.

Mr. C. Pannell: Only about a dozen staff.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: With regard to these doctrinaire proposals, how many licences does the Minister think his staff will be able to issue in a day and how long will it be before the fact of refusal is known and an appeal can be made?

Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Gentleman has read the Order Paper he will know that I am to answer Questions about that later.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works, in view of the fact that three months have elapsed since the announcement of the introduction of building licences, whether he will make interim arrangements to give provisional licences for developments urgently required in order to overcome the uncertainties of architects, builders and builders' suppliers.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is aware that many urgent building projects are in jeopardy because their sponsors do not know whether a building licence will be granted; and if he will make a statement on the policy he intends to pursue in granting licences.

Mr. C. Pannell: In advance of the Bill I am prepared to consider applications for permission to start a limited number of projects that are extremely urgent and essential. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the form which these applications should take.

Mr. Elliott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement will give a great deal of relief to the building industry, particularly in the North-East, where we have a great deal of development which it is generally recognised is urgent? Would he accept that since the announcement of the building licence proposal there has been enormous confusion in the building industry, with even a laying-off of some architectural staff?

Mr. Pannell: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have referred to the North-East because he should be aware that that is one of the excepted regions, to which, of course, this does not apply.

Mrs. Short: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his Answer—and I, too, welcome this very much—I am sure that all hon. Members and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must ask a question.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members and people outside support him in everything he is doing to get building going and to get our building priorities right?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the document which the right hon. Gentleman said he would distribute contain some indication of the class of case which he is likely to consider favourably, and will he circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman could not have heard me. I said that it is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is rather too long to get by this Mr. Speaker. I will only say at this stage that what has to be proved is that these sorts of thing are matters of extreme urgency. That is the only qualification I can give at this stage.

Following are the details:

Applications for Permission to Start Work on Building Projects subject to Licensing

The building licensing system announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th July, 1965, will apply with effect from that date to privately sponsored projects costing over £100,000 (exclusive of the cost of land and professional fees) other than housing, industrial buildings as defined by Section 21 of the Local Employment Act 1960 or any works in development districts. The control

will not affect projects for which a contract had been entered into before the Chancellor's statement, repairs and maintenance, or alterations which do not involve a change in the purpose for which a building is used or its substantial enlargement. Nor will it affect buildings or extensions to buildings containing office premises beyond the exemption limit, for which the Board of Trade have issued a permit under Part 1 of the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, 1965, or work which is the subject of an outstanding cost of works War Damage claim.

2. Any project authorised by me under the terms of my answer will be exempt from the effect of the licensing machinery.

Applications may now be made to the Ministry of Public Building and Works for permission to start work on projects which are clearly in the public interest and of extreme urgency and will be ready to start within six months. Applications should be addressed:

Projects in England:

The Secretary,

Ministry of Public Building and Works,

Secretariat G2 (Room 124),

Lambeth Bridge House,

London, S.E.1.

Projects in Scotland:

The Under Secretary.

Ministry of Public Building and Works, (B.I.M.O.),

122, George Street,

Edinburgh, 2.

Projects in Wales:

The Director for Wales,

Ministry of Public Building and Works, (B.I.M.O.),

Government Buildings,

Gabalfa, Cardiff.

3. Applications should be by letter and should state:—

(a) name and address of the person paying the cost of the work and (when known) the contractors;
(b) address where the work is to be carried out;
(c) brief description of the work, including form of construction and the gross area of accommodation to be provided;
(d) purpose for which the building is intended (if there is more than one purpose, the gross area for each should be stated);
(e) estimated cost (excluding cost of land and professional fees);
(f) approximate starting date and duration of work;
(g) reasons why the work is considered essential and urgent at present.

4. Anyone in any doubt about the application of the licensing system or the method of seeking permission to start a project may obtain advice from the Ministry's offices listed above or from any Regional Office of the Ministry.

Building Materials (Economic Measures)

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how the economic measures of 27th July will affect, for the period 1965 to 1970, the expansion in the production of building materials and components, investment by contractors in plant and equipment and on recruitment and training of manpower of all types.

Mr. Boyden: The measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th July, 1965, do not alter the objectives set out in the National Plan. All sections of the construction industry recognise the need for expansion and investment to meet those objectives.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the industry concerned has found very little encouragement in anything the Government have done so far? Is his right hon. Friend prepared to come to the Dispatch Box and say that no threat exists to the building construction industry and that the Government have set their face resolutely against stop-go, because that is what the Minister said on 20th November of last year?

Mr. Boyden: We have given the building industry the confidence in its future expansion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it needs to make long-term plans for reinvestment in plant and equipment and for the recruitment and training of manpower.

Mr. Lubbock: How has it happened that we have gone so quickly from the severe shortage in the brick industry which existed earlier this year to the conditions of surplus which apparently obtain now?

Mr. Boyden: There is another Question on the Order Paper which I will answer on that matter, but the stock of bricks now is still less than it was in September, 1963.

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) whether he is satisfied that the building restrictions which he is now imposing will not result in a surplus of building materials; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if he is aware that difficulties have been caused to the producers of building materials by the economic measures of 27th July; and if he will take steps to alleviate these difficulties.

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Channon: Is it not a rather disgraceful situation that the Minister begged the brickmakers last year to increase production while at the same time, as a Minister and as a responsible member of the Government, he creates conditions in the industry which result in a lack of confidence as expressed in the National Plan and causes a surplus of bricks in the industry and a larger stock than has existed at any time for many years past?

Mr. Boyden: No, Sir.

Kensington Gardens Tea House

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has for the reopening of the Kensington Gardens Tea House during 1966.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the improved facilities which have been provided in Hyde Park, my right hon. Friend is considering whether the expense of reopening and refurbishing Kensington Gardens Tea House is justifiable.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the desire of the public for more accommodation, and would he very carefully consider reopening it, if only for the summer months next year?

Mr. Boyden: We are considering a report from Forte's, which has the catering concession in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens for both of these establishments, as to whether this is justified or not. Plans are in hand for the equipping of several new kiosks in Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park.

Brick Production

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why he asked the brick companies to increase 1965 brick production by 8 per cent. over that of 1964.

Mr. Boyden: Because brick stocks were almost non-existent when my right hon. Friend assumed office.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his right hon. Friend wrote to me saying that when they fixed the brick target the Government could not have foreseen the economic crisis? If the Government could not have foreseen the economic crisis, why did they make such a row about the Tory inheritance, and will they now eat their words?

Mr. Boyden: No, Sir. This year brick production will meet the anticipated demand and stocks will again reach the normal level.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Sickness Benefit

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she is aware that sickness payments are made on certificates issued by non-qualified persons at nature cute establishments; and what steps she will take to deal with this.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): Sickness benefit is paid for incapacity for work and it is for the independent statutory authorities to decide whether a particular claimant satisfies this requirement. Where a claimant submits a certificate which has not been issued by a registered medical practitioner, these authorities are usually provided with a sick visitor's report and may themselves require the claimant to be medically examined by a regional medical officer of the appropriate health department. My right hon. Friend sees no reason for change.

Mr. Gurden: Does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary think that these certificates ought to be issued only by medical practitioners, and would he say what the B.M.A. has to say about this?

Mr. Pentland: I know nothing about the B.M.A.'s attitude. The determining authority takes its decision in the light of all the evidence made available to it or for which it has asked. The medical certificate is only part of that evidence.

Temporary Home Employment

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if she will seek to include within the provisions of the National Insurance Act a person temporarily employed by parents in a private house.

Mr. Pentland: Such a person is already within the scope of the National Insurance scheme as a non-employed person and should contribute accordingly. In certain cases where the employment is for the purposes of a trade or business, contributions proper to those of an employed person may be payable.

Mr. Elliott: While being aware of that, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to give favourable and sympathetic consideration to the occasional case which is very genuine where a person has been employed in her own home—and I have given him details of one case—for very good reasons indeed? Will he not look again at this whole matter possibly with a view to bending the Regulations just a little?

Mr. Pentland: It is, I am afraid, impossible to bend the Regulations. Indeed, it was as a consequence of the 1958 Amendment Regulation that the constituent whose case the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and for whom he has shown considerable concern, was eliminated from the classification of employed persons.

Mentally Disabled Persons (Sickness Benefit)

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will review the regulation by which sickness benefit is automatically stopped in the case of mentally disabled persons who earn more than 40s. a week.

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. Sickness benefit is paid for incapacity for work. The earnings of 40s. which are referred to are merely a practical measure of the amount of therapeutic work a person may be allowed to do and still be treated as incapable of work for sickness benefit purposes.

Mr. Woodhouse: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that the National Insurance Advisory Committee, in proposing this limitation in 1960, at


the same time recommended that the limit should be reviewed if there were evidence of a substantial change in the pattern of employment of such cases? If I send the hon. Gentleman evidence to show that there has been such a substantial change, at any rate in the Oxford region, will he consider it?

Mr. Pentland: Yes, Sir. I will be glad to look into any evidence which the hon. Gentleman sends to me on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Student Nurses

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Health if he will set up an independent inquiry into the pay and conditions of work of student nurses.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I see no need for this.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend's Answer mean that he is completely satisfied with the pay and conditions of these young girls? Can he tell me which member of his Department was responsible for the remark, reported in the Daily Mirror some while ago, that these girls might have great prestige to counteract all the disadvantages of possibly low pay? Will he take steps to make certain that that kind of argument is not used to exploit these young people?

Mr. Robinson: I should want notice of the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question about an alleged statement reported in the Press. I would only say to my hon. Friend that I am never completely satisfied, but, as he knows, pay and service conditions are matters for the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council. As he also no doubt knows, student nurses' pay has this year been increased by between £24 and £76 per year, which is between 6 per cent. and 15½ per cent.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that an undue proportion of a student nurses's time is devoted to menial ward work; and what steps he is taking to prevent the exploitation of these nurses as a form of cheap labour.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have no evidence of this and I do not accept the implications of the second part of the Question.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to get evidence, because the information I have is that these girls are being exploited in this regard because it is difficult, especially in the urban areas, to get the kind of ancillary workers who are required to do this kind of work? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to get the facts and figures from the hospitals, particularly in the London area?

Mr. Robinson: I shall be glad to consider any evidence which my hon. Friend can put before me. I can give him some facts and figures. The increase in the number of nursing auxiliaries and assistants which has taken place in the National Health Service between 1951 and 1964 is about 100 per cent. In the same period there has also been a 20 per cent. increase in the number of ward orderlies, domestics and other ancillary staff.

Norfolk and Norwich Hospital (Medical Staff)

Mr. Norwood: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received about the shortage of medical staff at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital; and whether he is aware of the strain imposed upon the staff and the difficulty of coping with patients and would-be patients thereby created.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): My Department is in close touch with the East Anglian Regional Hospital Board. An additional consultant anaesthetist and three additional house surgeons have been appointed. I understand that the board is considering making further additions to the medical staff, whose number is recognised as being inadequate.

Mr. Norwood: Will my hon. Friend agree that the present situation, with about 500 more patients on the waiting list, according to the figures at the end of August, than there were at this time last year, would fully support any representations which might be made to him either by the regional hospital board or by others for a further increase of staff, whose working conditions are generally accepted in the city to be intolerable?

Mr. Loughlin: I assure my hon. Friend that we have this in mind, and we have been in touch with the regional hospital


board. We shall, of course, consider anything put to us by any regional hospital board.

Professional and Technical Staff (Pay)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Health what action he has taken to meet the request of the works organisation professional and technical staff of the regional hospital boards that he should intervene to prevent the threatened breakdown of the present pay negotiations.

Mr. K. Robinson: I understand that agreement has now been provisionally reached.

Mr. Tilney: I understand that the majority must await the report of the pay research unit in the Civil Service. Will any increases both for civil servants and for regional hospital board staff be back-dated to the same date?

Mr. Robinson: The position is that agreement was reached on 26th October in a small negotiating committee and it is subject to ratification by both sides. In the meantime, it would not be appropriate for me to announce the actual details of the provisional settlement.

Mrs. Capeling (Coroner's Statement)

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the statement by the East Kent coroner on 14th September, 1965, during the inquest on Mrs. Capeling of Gillingham, regarding her treatment in hospital, details of which have been sent to him; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. K. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that no blame attaches either to the doctors or to the hospital authorities concerned.

Mr. Burden: In the light of the investigations which the right hon. Gentleman has carried out, will he agree that the remarks of the East Kent coroner verged on being irresponsible? Will he agree also that the standards of treatment at the particular hospital are of the highest, and that the unfortunate feature of the coroner's remarks was that they would be likely to create alarm in people having

to attend the hospital for treatment? Finally, will he say whether the suggestion that people who attempt to commit suicide should be kept in hospital for 48 hours has been extended to other hospitals?

Mr. Robinson: I should want notice of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I entirely agree with him about the standard of treatment at this hospital. As regards the first part of what he said, I have already written to him, and I think that I had better content myself with saying that doctors from overseas play an essential part in staffing our hospital services and we owe a great deal to them.

Senior Enrolled Nurses (Pay)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that hospital authorities have been following the advice they were given that where an enrolled nurse is appointed as a senior enrolled nurse and has been carrying out the duties appropriate to the new grade since 1st October, 1964, her increased pay should be back-dated to 1st October; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have no reason to believe that hospital authorities have not followed my advice.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Association of State Enrolled Nurses has had to take up with the authorities cases in which this back-dating has not been followed? I have sent him evidence of one such case and there may be many others which have not come to the association's knowledge, and there is great anxiety in the association on this subject.

Mr. Robinson: I was aware of only one case in which there was some difficulty, which has now, happily, been overcome; but I should be glad to consider any evidence which the hon. Gentleman cares to submit to me.

East Anglian Regional Hospital Board (Capital Allocation)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Health, following his review of the hospital programme, what extra capital allocation he will make to the Eastern


Regional Hospital Board to enable adequate hospital services to be provided for the increased population resulting from the planned expansion of towns in the East Anglia region.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am not yet able to add to the answer my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 29th March.

Mr. Hill: Does the Minister realise that the present projection of capital allocations in the East Anglian board's region simply will not cover the known increase of population which has been planned by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Department of Economic Affairs, and that it is absolutely essential that there be a substantial increase to enable standards to be maintained, let alone improved?

Mr. Robinson: All regional hospital boards have been asked to submit their preliminary proposals to me by today. When I have studied them, I shall consider whether to vary the provisional distribution of resources as between regions. I shall bear in mind the point which the hon. Gentleman makes.

Pay Beds

Mr. Lomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he has completed his review of his policy on pay beds; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: Not yet, but I will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Lomas: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in the course of his consideration of the review of pay beds that according to figures issued in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Health for 1964 there was an average daily number of 5,449 Section 5 pay beds available and in the course of the year the average daily number in use was only 2,892? Is it not wrong that only 53 per cent. of the pay beds should be used, and does he not think that he should do away with these pay beds when we have a waiting list of almost half a million people?

Mr. Robinson: I am certainly aware of the statistics which my hon. Friend quotes from my Department's Annual Report. I can only tell him that these were among the considerations which led me to undertake the current review.

New General Hospital, Hull

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Health when he expects the building of the new general hospital in Hull to be completed.

Mr. Loughlin: The Leeds Regional Hospital Board hopes for completion about the end of May.

Mr. Johnson: Can my hon. Friend tell me what the delay in building will mean in increased costs and whether the costs will be met, as usual, by the central fund?

Mr. Loughlin: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by delay in building increasing any costs, but if he will table the Question I will look at it.

Montagu Hospital, Mexborough

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the detailed technical survey of the existing buildings and services which was held at the Montagu Hospital, Mexborough, in 1962.

Mr. Loughlin: A survey was completed in 1963. By comparison with modern standards, it revealed certain deficiencies. These will be taken into account by the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board in deciding the extent of upgrading or rebuilding necessary, and the priority to be accorded to it.

Mr. Wainwright: Is my hon. Friend aware that many substantial alterations have taken place at the hospital over the last few years to try to improve the facilities but the facilities are still very inadequate? Does he not realise that surveys are of no use unless action is taken upon them?

Mr. Loughlin: I think that everyone can assume that when one is dealing with a building which was first opened in 1905 and one makes a survey of it, deficiencies are bound to be shown. [Interruption.] I see that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just entered this Chamber; I thought that that applause could not be for me. I have no reason to believe that any of this hospital building is unsafe, but if my hon. Friend will send me any points that


he has in mind I shall be glad to consider them.

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Health when the upgrading or the rebuilding of the Montagu Hospital, Mexborough, will be commenced.

Mr. Loughlin: I am not at present able to say when upgrading or rebuilding might be undertaken at this hospital.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that the staff at the hospital are working under great stress and, although they are proving their worth as members of the medical fraternity, they are not able to carry out their work in the efficient manner that they would wish? Does he not further realise that unless his Department supplies more money to the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board, the new hospital, which is long overdue, will not be built in the next decade?

Mr. Loughlin: I am very glad that my hon. Friend paid tribute to the staff working in the hospital. As my right hon. Friend said a moment ago, hospital boards are at present reviewing their programmes and some information will soon be forthcoming. I must emphasise that each regional hospital board is responsible for the priorities in its region.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Contaminated Corned Beef

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Health if he will order stocks of corned beef withdrawn from sale last year to be destroyed, so as to eliminate any risk to the general public.

Mr. Lomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he has reached a decision on the proposal that hitherto suspected canned meat should be re-processed and released by the firms at present holding it and sold for human consumption; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Loughlin: I refer my hon. Friends to my Answer to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) on 27th October.

Mr. Craddock: Did that mean that Ministers acted in such a way that the corned beef was destroyed?

Mr. Loughlin: Two points arise here. The first concerns the tins from the establishment associated by the Committee of Inquiry with the outbreak which it looked into. Those tins have already left the country. The second point is that there are other stocks which are suspect, some held by the Government. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has indicated to the trade that we will not release our stocks. Two major importers have agreed not to release their stocks as well. There are small stocks in private hands, but I have no reason to believe that those importers or traders will act contrary to what has already been done.

Mr. Lomas: In the reply to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) on 27th October, my hon. Friend stated that these tins had left the country. What exactly does "left the country" mean? Did they leave by themselves, were they dumped in the river, or were they re-exported?

Mr. Loughlin: This is the full stock in relation to Establishment No. 1A, and, as far as I know, they were dispatched by the people who held the stocks at that time.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the Minister absolutely satisfied that by no means, by re-exporting, by firms holding these stocks in this country or in any other way, can they be produced for human consumption? There has been a great deal of concern about it in the City of Aberdeen. We got over the outbreak very satisfactorily, and no one wishes to be reminded of it.

Mr. Loughlin: I cannot give an absolute guarantee because, as I said, there are stocks in private hands at present, but I can assure the House that, if any firms indicate that they propose to process or reprocess these stocks to make them fit for human consumption, any technique of processing will have to be agreed with my Department, and they will be identifiable afterwards so that the trade and the public can be protected.

General Practitioners (Surgery Improvement Grants)

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Health if he has now agreed the surgery improvement grant scheme for general


practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: Yes, Sir. Under the scheme, which start on 1st December, general practitioners will be eligible for a grant of one-third of the cost of approved projects for the improvement of existing surgery premises. In accordance with my earlier undertaking to the profession, any project started this year which satisfies the conditions will be considered for grant.

Mr. Mapp: Does my right hon. Friend contemplate, as I do, a great measure of satisfaction throughout the general practitioner world at the announcement he has made today? He has covered the supplementary question which I had in mind about it.

Spain (Medical Services)

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Health what steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to negotiate reciprocal medical agreements with the Spanish Government.

Mr. Loughlin: None, Sir. Spain has not the kind of health service which could provide a basis for reciprocity.

Mr. Heffer: I accept my hon. Friend's remarks, but is he aware that many British visitors to Spain are being charged fantastically high medical fees and have been exploited? Is he aware that one of my constituents was forced to pay over £1,000 for something which in this country would have involved relatively negligible expense? Does he agree that something ought to be done, and, in the meantime—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is becoming too long. We will stop there.

Mr. Loughlin: I have knowledge of and appreciate the great problem in the case referred to by my hon. Friend, but the difficulty we face is that "medical benefit" in Spain applies only to certain limited categories of people. I understand that a person has to earn less than £300 a year, be an old-age pensioner or be in receipt of accident insurance benefit. Obviously, it is a difficult problem to get the Spanish authorities to offer to British tourists a better health service than they offer to their own people.

Epileptics

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the Cohen Report on the care of epileptics; and what plans he has to develop further the existing facilities and services for epileptics within the National Health Service.

Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 29th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr). My Standing Medical Advisory Committee has been asked to advise on future developments.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a good number of the sheltered workshops which provide employment for the more serious cases of epilepsy are in old and inadequate buildings? Will he make a survey of the existing buildings to see what help might be given?

Mr. Robinson: I would rather await the advice of my Standing Medical Advisory Committee. After the necessary consultations have been carried out, I hope to be able to give further guidance on the health and welfare aspects of the care of epileptics.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend put to his committee that the employment opportunities for epileptics whom treatment makes suitable for a variety of jobs are quite inadequate at present and the green card is often more a hindrance than a help?

Mr. Robinson: I shall consider the point which my hon. Friend makes.

Prescription Charges

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Health (1) what has been the cost of the abolition of prescription charges to date; and how these figures compare with the estimates he made;
(2) what he now estimates will be the cost of the abolition of prescription charges for a full year; and how these estimates compare with those presented earlier in the year.

Mr. K. Robinson: It is not possible to make reliable estimates of the effect on


the drug bill of the abolition of prescription charges, since this factor cannot be isolated from other factors, including those mentioned in my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) of 4th August.

Brigadier Clarke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been much better if he had not abolished the prescription charges in toto but had abolished them only for people who cannot afford to pay, such as old-age pensioners and others on small fixed incomes?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I do not agree that it was a mistake to abolish the prescription charges. We have discussed on a number of occasions the problem of trying to distinguish between cases of hardship and others. I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Opposition did not table a Prayer against the Order abolishing prescription charges.

Sir K. Joseph: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is here involved both a loss of revenue and an almost certain increase in costs due to the rise in the number of prescriptions? Is he satisfied that in view of the other needs of the service all this extra public expenditure is really justified?

Mr. Robinson: I am satisfied that it was the right thing to do to abolish prescription charges. As I have told the right hon. Gentleman before, this was a perfectly clear, categorical pledge made by the Labour Party when in opposition. We have heard a great deal from the Conservative Party about pledges which are alleged to be broken. Here is a pledge that was carried out.

Later—

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that you were calling the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) to ask a supplementary question on Questions Nos. 58 and 59 and not to ask Question No. 60. Otherwise, I should have given notice—and I hope I am not too late to do so—that I should like to raise the subject of those Questions on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for the hon. Gentleman's failure to understand where we are. He is out of order now.

Sir C. Taylor: Am I in order now, Mr. Speaker, in giving notice that I wish to raise these matters on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman is not in order, and is wasting precious Question time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Dock Industry (Unions)

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to bring about agreement between the unions in the dock industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): The Transport and General Workers' Union and the other unions represented on the Workpeople's Side of the National Joint Council have agreed with the Employers' Side in offering the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers a seat on the National Modernisation Committee which the Council has set up to work out a new plan for modernising the industrial relations in the industry. The National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers have accepted the seat on the terms on which it was offered.
My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to make a general statement on the progress being made in implementing the recommendations of the Devlin Report.

Mr. Tilney: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that that is only one aspect of the Devlin Report's recommendations, and is he aware that the Waterfront Committee, which represents all the users of the Merseyside ports, would like all the recommendations carried out?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is another question.

Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation and Relief)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Labour what private organisations concerned with the rehabilitation and relief of the disabled receive the Government's financial support.

Mr. Thornton: As the reply is rather long I will with permission circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman consider adding to the list


the Pony Riding for the Disabled Scheme, and if he is not convinced, would he care to see it in operation at Grange Farm, Chigwell?

Mr. Thornton: I will certainly give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Following is the statement:

1. Financial assistance is given to private organisations concerned with the rehabilitation and relief of the disabled by the following Government Departments:—

The Ministry of Health.
The Scottish Home and Health Department.
The Ministry of Labour.
The Department of Education and Science.

2. The organisations assisted by each are listed below:—

THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH

The Royal National Institute for the Blind.
The National Library for the Blind.
Regional Associations for the Blind.
The College of Teachers of the Blind.
The British and Foreign Bible Society.

THE SCOTTISH HOME AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Royal Blind Asylum, Edinburgh.
Scottish Association for Mental Health, Edinburgh.
Scottish Federation for the Welfare of the Blind, Edinburgh.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

1. REHABILITATION ESTABLISHMENTS

London and South East

Industrial Therapy Organisation (Thames) Limited.
Industrial Therapy Organisation (Epsom) Limited.

Wales and South Western
R.N.I.B., Manor House, Torquay.

Scotland
Society for Welfare and Teaching the Blind, Alwyn House, Ceres, Fife.

2. TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS

London and South East

Royal National Institute for the Blind, Pembridge Place, London.
R.N.I.B. School of Physiotherapy, Great Portland Street, London.
Queen Elizabeth's College, Leatherhead.
Lingfield Epileptic Colony, Lingfield.
St. Dunstans.

Midlands Region

Portland Training Centre, Mansfield.
The Spastics Society, Joseph Lucas Training School, Birmingham.

Yorks and Humberside and Northern
Finchale Abbey Training Centre, Co. Durham.

Wales and South West

St. Loyes College, Exeter.
Royal National Institute for the Deaf, Training Centre for Maladjusted Deaf Youths, Abbotskerswell, Devon.

Scotland
Royal Blind School, Craigmillar, Edinburgh.

North West Region
The Spastics Society, Chester Office Training Centre.

3. (a) SHELTERED WORKSHOPS—BLIND

Northern Region

Cleveland and South Durham Institute for the Blind.
Sunderland and Durham County Incorporated Royal Institution for the Blind, Sunderland.
The Hartlepools Workshops for the Blind.

Yorks and Humberside Region

Institution for the Blind of Dewsbury, Batley and District.
The Lindsey Blind Society, Scunthorpe.
Hull and East Riding Institute for the Blind.

Eastern and Southern Region

The Incorporated Association for Promoting the General Welfare of the Blind, County Workshops for the Blind, Luton.
The Norwich Institution for the Blind.

London and South Eastern Region

Barclay School Workshops for the Blind, Brighton.
Royal School for the Blind, Leatherhead.
Royal School for the Blind, London Workshop, S.E.1.
London Association for the Blind, S.E.15.
The Incorporated Association for Promoting the General Welfare of the Blind, London, W.1.
Royal London Society for the Blind, N.W.6.

South Western Region

Bristol Royal School and Workshops for the Blind.
South Devon and Cornwall Institution for the Blind, Plymouth.

Wales

Cardiff Institute for the Blind (Incorporated).
Carmarthenshire Blind Society, Llanelly Branch.
Merthyr Tydfil Institution for the Blind.

Midlands Region

Wolverhampton, Dudley and Districts Institute for the Blind.


The Royal Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Incorporated Institution for the Blind.
Northamptonshire Town and County Association for the Blind.
Royal Midland Institution for the Blind, Nottingham.

North Western Region

Accrington and District Institution for the Blind and Prevention of Blindness.
Blackpool and Fylde Society for the Blind.
Chester and District Blind Welfare Society.
Liverpool Workshops and Birkenhead Society for the Blind (Incorporated).
Henshaw's Institution for the Blind, Manchester.
The Workshops of the Institute for Blind Welfare, Preston.
St. Helens and District Society for the Welfare of the Blind.
Wigan, Leigh and District Society for the Blind.

Scotland

The Royal Aberdeen Workshop for the Blind.
The Royal Dundee Institution for the Blind.
The Royal Blind Asylum and School, Edinburgh.
The Northern Counties Institute for the Blind, Inverness.

3. (b) SHELTERED WORKSHOPS—SIGHTED DISABLED

Northern
Botton Estate (Camphill Village Trust) Whitby.

Eastern and Southern

British Red Cross Society Workshops for the Disabled (Mustow House), Bury St. Edmunds.
Enham-Alamein Village Centre, Andover.
Lord Roberts' Workshops, Colchester.
Papworth Village Settlement, Cambridge.
Sherrards Centre (Spastics Society), Welwyn Garden City.
Hertfordshire Association for the Welfare of the Handicapped, Watford.
Yately Industries, Fleet.
Ludun Limited, Luton and Dunstable.

London and South Eastern

British Legion Industries, Maidstone.
Church Army Rehabilitation Centre, Brixton.
Dorincourt Estates Limited, Leather-head.
Hostels for Crippled and Invalid Women Workers, Camberwell.

Lord Roberts' Workshops, Brookwood, Woking.
Lord Roberts' Workshops, Fulham.
School of Stitchery, Leatherhead.
Thermega Limited, Leatherhead.

South Western

The Grange (Camphill Village Trust), Cinderford.
Industrial Therapy Organisation, Bristol.
Lord Roberts' Workshops, Bristol.
St. Loyes College, Exeter.
Cornwall Infirmary Sheltered Workshop, Truro.

Wales
Cambrian Factory Limited, Ammanford.

Midlands
Portland Training College for the Disabled, Mansfield.

North Western

Cheadle Royal Industries Limited, Stockport.
Barrowmore Industries, Chester.
Anne Glassey Workshop, Wallasey.
Lord Roberts' Workshop, Liverpool.
Sir Robert Jones' Memorial Workshops, Liverpool.

Scotland

Erskine Hospital Workshops, Paisley.
Haven Products Limited, Hillington, Glasgow.
Haven Products Limited, Largs.
Lord Roberts' Workshops, Dundee.
Lord Roberts' Workshops, Edinburgh.
Newton Dee Community (Camphill Village Trust) Aberdeen.
Scottish Council for the Care of Spastics, Rhuemore, Edinburgh.
Scottish Epilepsy Association (Seaborn Industries) Glasgow.
Scottish Hansel Village Circle Limited, Ayr.
Thistlecraft Limited, Edinburgh.
Edinburgh Cripples Aid Society.

Total number of organisations:—


Rehabilitation establishments
4


Training Establishments
12


Sheltered Workshops (75 workshops belonging to 64 organisations)
64



80

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Training Establishments

Blind

Royal Normal College and Academy for the Blind, Rowton Castle, Near Shrewsbury.


Hethersett Centre for the Adolescent Blind, Reigate.
Queen Alexandra Training College (Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind), Edgbaston, Birmingham.

Deaf
Royal Residential Schools for the Deaf, Old Trafford, Manchester.

Physically Handicapped

Lord Mayor Treloar College, Froyle, Alton, Hampshire.
Derwen Cripples' Training College, Oswestry.
Queen Elizabeth Training College for the Disabled, Leatherhead.
School of Stitchery, Bookham, Surrey.
St. Loyes College for the Training and Rehabilitation of the Disabled, Exeter.

Accidents (Works Safety Committees)

Mr. Derek Page: asked the Minister of Labour what proposals he has to ensure that factory safety committees meet without delay after accidents to investigate circumstances.

Mr. Thornton: Works safety committees have a very important rôle to play in the study and investigation of the circumstances giving rise to accidents, but I do not think that it would be either desirable or practicable for my right hon. Friend to recommend any particular procedure for them to follow. Their function is, of course, an advisory one and it is for the committees themselves to decide in the light of local circumstances how best to carry this out.

Mr. Page: Does not my hon. Friend agree that evidence tends to grow cold unless an investigation is made at the earliest possible moment, and is he aware that many workers in the King's Lynn area feel that a greater sense or urgency is necessary?

Mr. Thornton: We are giving very close attention to this subject and are concerned at the continuing increase in the number of accidents. However, I must remind my hon. Friend that of necessity these safety committees serve in an advisory capacity.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (ARRESTED BRITISH SUBJECTS)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects were detained in

custody in Spain pending trial, or otherwise, in the period 20th August to 22nd September 1965; in how many cases the Spanish authorities notified his Department that these British subjects were in custody within three days of their arrest, within seven days of their arrest, and within 14 days of their arrest; whether he is satisfied with this situation; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): British Consular Officers have reported that 32 British subjects were arrested in Spain during the period 20th August to 22nd September, 1965. In 19 cases Consular representatives were notified within three days; in one case between three days and a week, and in no case between a week and a fortnight. In nine cases Consuls learned of the arrest before official notification could be received. In three cases no official notification was received.
During the period 20th August to 22nd September five British subjects were already under detention, one of whom was awaiting trial and four serving prison sentences.
I am confident, in view of the assurance recently given by the Spanish Government, that their authorities will fulfill their obligation to notify arrests.

Sir Richard Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituent, John Balson, was held in Spain for 51 days, that information about his arrest was never passed to the British Government and that no proper attempt was made to find him by the Foreign Office until he had been held in prison, without access to the consul or to a lawyer, for two weeks? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to make sure that this sort of thing will never happen again?

Mr. Stewart: It is true that the Spanish authorities failed to carry out their obligations to notify us in this case, and they have expressed their regret for so doing. But I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that no adequate steps were taken by the Foreign Office to trace Mr. Balson. I have been in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman about this and I shall be glad, as I suggested then, to explain to him further what happened in this case.
To put this matter in proportion, we should remember that about 1 million British subjects visit Spain every year and that the proportion who get into trouble of any kind is extremely small.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that I am grateful for its keen co-operation at Question Time?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Temporary Import Charge

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. DEREK PAGE: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to simplify the formalities required for the drawback of temporary surcharge on chemicals used in the manufacture of products for export.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, I will answer Question No. 80.
No further general simplifications are contemplated at present, but the Customs are always willing to consider any special problems. If my hon. Friend will let me have the details of any difficulties that exporters are experiencing, I will see how they can be assisted. I should like to convey to the House my apologies for my absence last Thursday when this Question and Question No. 81 were called.

Mr. Page: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that many firms feel that the cost of going through the formalities for the drawback virtually outweighs the value of the drawback? Is he further aware that the demand for these chemicals, which are not made in this country, is singularly inelastic and therefore not amenable to financial control in this way? Would it not, therefore, be better to adopt my original suggestion of treating these chemicals as raw materials and exempting them altogether from the surcharge?

Mr. Callaghan: I expected that supplementary question. I would remind my hon. Friend that the surcharge was not designed as a protective duty and, there-

fore,it has not been possible to carry out the steps he proposes. There will be an apportunity to debate this matter again, and then, perhaps, I will be able to answer him a little more fully.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Chancellor aware that there is fear that what was imposed originally as a temporary expedient will become permanent? May we have an assurance that it is still the intention to remove the surcharge as soon as possible and that it is not intended to become a permanent part of our restrictive machinery?

Mr. Callaghan: I am dealing now with Question No. 80.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. G. R. HOWARD: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the temporary surcharge will be lifted.

Mr. Callaghan: With permission, I will answer Question No. 81.
As our progress warrants it, that is to say when we have corrected the imbalance of the economy and in our external payments.

Mr. Howard: While thanking the Chancellor for his courteous letter to me about the unfortunate episode last week, may I ask him three questions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is being treated as an ordinary Question. The hon. Gentleman must put one supplementary question.

Mr. Howard: Can the Chancellor tell me the effect that this is having on our exports? Was this discussed during the E.F.T.A. meeting last week? What opinions were expressed about it then? Lastly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked three questions when I asked him not to, and he cannot now ask a fourth.

Mr. Callaghan: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "None". The answer to the second part is, "Yes". In answer to the third part, I would refer him to the communiqué that was issued.

Mr. William Clark: Is the Chancellor not aware that, on 11th December, he


said that the surcharge would save £300 million, but that on 29th July the President of the Board of Trade refuted this figure and said that it was never mentioned? Does not this show complete lack of liaison between the Treasury and the Board of Trade? What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to prevent a recurrence of such a blunder?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed his chance last Friday when I made my statement and answered a similar question. However, I will repeat the answer. Apparently it has escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that the surcharge was reduced from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. early last summer. That, of course, affected the estimates of the effect.

RHODESIA

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on Rhodesia.
The House will recall that, following the break-up of the Central African Federation in 1963, there have been continuing discussions on the question of independence for Rhodesia, and in particular on the terms on which Her Majesty's Government could recommend Parliament to pass the necessary legislation. For it cannot be too clearly stated that independence for Rhodesia can come only by the authority of this Parliament.
In pursuance of the discussions which began in September, 1964, the right hon. Gentleman, the then Prime Minister, and his colleagues, had thorough and frank discussions with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia. In those discussions the then British Government made clear three things. One, any unilateral declaration claiming independence would be invalid, illegal and indeed a revolt against the Crown. Two, that while the discussions should start from the 1961 Rhodesian Constitution, that had not in fact been devised as an Independence Constitution (the Rhodesian Government contest this statement), and there must be sufficiently representative institutions as a condition of the grant of independence to Rhodesia, a view which was endorsed by the 1964 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting. Third, the then Government made clear

that whatever settlement was reached as a basis for independence must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
This was the position at the time of the change of Government in Britain, and Her Majesty's Government have in fact consistently followed the principles laid down by our predecessors and have sought to give effect to them. On 15th October last year, Polling Day, the then Government rejected Mr. Smith's suggestion that the judgment of the forthcoming indaba of Rhodesian Chiefs could be taken as indicating the views of the Rhodesian people as a whole. On taking office we confirmed that rejection.
The House will recall that, in view of evidence that a Unilateral Declaration of Independence was imminent at that time, the Government issued on 27th October, 1964, a statement on the legal, constitutional and economic consequences of such a step. The House will recall also that when, in April this year, in the course of the Rhodesian election, doubts were thrown on the implication of that statement, I made a further statement in this House on 29th April.
I will not weary the House with all the details of my exchanges, written and oral, with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia. But it will be recalled that, after written exchanges, I met Mr. Smith when he came to London to attend the funeral of Sir Winston Churchill and that shortly afterwards my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations visited Rhodesia for discussions with the Government there and with representative leaders of all shades of opinion.
Following that visit, exchanges continued by letter and orally through the British High Commissioner in Salisbury—and I cannot find words adequate to pay tribute to his work through all this time—on the basis of five principles which Her Majesty's Government considered must be realised before independence could be granted, and which Mr. Smith accepted. These principles, as the House knows, were:

1. The principle and intention of unimpeded progress to majority rule, already enshrined in the 1961 Constitution, would have to be maintained and guaranteed.


2. There would also have to be guarantees against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution.
3. There would have to be immediate improvement in the political status of the African population.
4. There would have to be progress towards ending racial discrimination.
5. The British Government would need to be satisfied that any basis proposed for independence was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

These were the five principles. A fuller statement on the position which Her Majesty's Government have taken up on these principles was in fact published by my right hon. Friend's Department on 9th October after the breaking off of the recent London talks, and for the convenience of the House I propose to circulate that statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Going back to the summer; in furtherance of the discussions on these principles, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations, in July, visited Rhodesia for further discussions and then, after further written and oral exchanges, Mr. Smith came to London for talks aimed at producing a final settlement of the points at issue. After talks lasting four days, from 5th to 8th October, it became clear that no agreement was in sight, and an agreed communiqué was issued saying so. The statement of 9th October to which I have referred set out in more detail the points at issue and I will not take up the time of the House going over the material in that statement.
Although we failed to reach agreement on the means of giving effect to every one of the five principles, I will particularly draw the House's attention to our insistence that guaranteed and unimpeded progress to majority rule should not be frustrated by the freedom of an independent Rhodesia to amend the 1961 Constitution in a retrogressive sense. In this connection the House will be aware of a singular feature in that Constitution, in that while certain constitutional safeguards are entrenched, other provisions—including even the numbers of Members of Parliament to be elected on the "A" roll and "B" roll, respectively—are not

entrenched and, on a two-thirds Parliamentary majority, could be altered in such a way as completely to frustrate the Constitution and the prospects of orderly progress to majority rule. Equally, in the London talks, there was no agreement at all on the means of giving effect to the overriding fifth principle that the British Government and the British Parliament must be satisfied that the terms for independence are acceptable to the Rhodesian people as a whole.
Despite the breakdown, I made clear to Mr. Smith on the day of his departure, and my right hon. Friend reconfirmed when he saw him off at London Airport, that we were prepared to continue the discussions. There were, of course, a number of proposals which deserve further consideration, including our proposal of a Constitutional Conference, Mr. Smith's proposal for a Senate to vote on constitutional matters—though, on his formulation, only on the entrenched clauses—and the proposal which came up very late in the day for a Treaty between the British Government and the Government of Rhodesia to provide the necessary safeguards.
As the House knows, exchanges continued, including those covering my proposal for a Commonwealth Mission to be headed by Sir Robert Menzies which Mr. Smith rejected. On 20th October, Mr. Smith sent me an urgent letter, which hon. Members will have seen and which many hon. Members will have regarded as being in the nature of an ultimatum, demanding our immediate acceptance of independence on the basis of the 1961 Constitution combined with a Treaty on the lines suggested by Mr. Smith. Following my visit to Salisbury, I must tell the House that I am in no doubt that a U.D.I. would have followed the Government's rejection of that demand, for I am sure the House would never have agreed to our accepting it.
As the House knows, I replied saying that I proposed to go to Salisbury to continue the discussions with the Rhodesian Government and to have talks with all—including African Nationalist Leaders and ex-Prime Ministers—whom I felt could help. Accordingly, accompanied by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development, who went for


the purpose of discussing an intensified education programme with Rhodesian Ministers, I left for Salisbury on 24th October. I should perhaps add that in the course of my journey, more than 13,000 miles, I discussed the Rhodesian and, of course, other questions with the Presidents of Kenya, Zambia and Ghana and the Prime Minister of Nigeria, while my right hon. Friend has visited Tanzania and Kenya. The House will recognise that, although Britain alone carries the responsibility and the trust, there are other people to consider, not only the peoples of Britain and of Rhodesia, but also the Commonwealth, and indeed the United Nations as a whole.
For my talks in Salisbury I was joined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. In all I had talks spread over four days, and covering practically every minute of those four days, with the Government of Rhodesia and with leaders of all sections of Rhodesian opinion. Just to give the House an idea of the scope; in all, my talks covered nine and a half hours with Mr. Smith, alone, or with his colleagues, and in one case, with the whole Cabinet: twenty-nine hours in separate meetings with other leaders of opinion, including three long meetings with Mr. Nkomo and his colleagues, three with Mr. Sithole and his colleagues, and one meeting with Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole together. In all, serious talks with 126 leading and representative Rhodesians.
No one, British or Rhodesian, has been able to hear the views of so many leaders of opinion, African or European, for very many years. Before I come to the crucial meetings with the Rhodesian Government and describe the state at which the discussions stood when I left Rhodesia, I should tell the House that in my talks with the African Nationalist leaders, and with African and other M.P.s elected on the "B" roll, I made clear, with absolute frankness, three things. First, I regarded it as my duty to remove from their minds any idea or any hope they might have had that Rhodesia's constitutional problems were going to be solved by an assertion of military power on our part, whether for the purposes of suspending or amending the 1961 Constitution, of imposing majority rule tomorrow or any other time—or for that matter of dealing with the situation that would follow an illegal

assertion of independence. To quote the words I used to them:
If there are those who are thinking in terms of a thunderbolt hurtling from the sky and destroying their enemies, a thunderbolt in the shape of the Royal Air Force, let me say that thunderbolt will not be coming, and to continue in this delusion wastes valuable time, and misdirects valuable energies.
Secondly, I said:
Although successive British Governments are deeply and irrevocably committed to guaranteed and unimpeded progress to majority rule, the British Government who alone through the British Parliament have the legal power to grant independence, do not believe that in the present and tragic and divided condition of Rhodesia, that majority can or should come today, or tomorrow. A period of time is needed, time to remove the fears and suspicions between race and race, time to show that the Constitution of Rhodesia with whatever amendments may later be made, can be worked, and is going to be worked, and that the rule of law, equally with the maintenance of essential human rights, will be paramount. And the time required cannot be measured by clock or calendar, but only by achievement.
Thirdly, I urged them to unite the at present bitterly divided forces of African opinion, to work the Constitution of Rhodesia in a constitutional manner, to persuade their followers to register and to vote; I urged them to stand for Parliament and to show to Rhodesia, to ourselves here in Britain and the world, that they and the others concerned could make a reality of a multi-racial Parliament, with a system of multi-racial government, as long as possible before and, of course, indefinitely after majority rule. And let it be clear—if this is listened to—such an achievement is going to require a very painful surrender of prejudice, a very substantial eating of words, by a lot of people, African and European alike.
Now I turn to the discussions with the Government. Every issue was exhaustively discussed and there is no question which has not been fully thrashed out. And I want the House to know that no one in authority in Rhodesia can now be in any doubt of the dire consequences, legal, constitutional or economic, of an illegal seizure of power. Indeed, I would hope that no one in Rhodesia at all, following my statement to a news conference on Saturday—which, if the House wishes, I will place in the Library—would now be in any doubt of the position. For the House must realise, and I am sure many hon. Members do, that Rhodesia today is not only hyper-charged with


emotion, particularly the emotion of fear, it is also—Europeans and Africans alike—characterised by an extraordinary degree of self-deception.
There were no threats. There were warnings, not only of the action we should have to take, but also my assessment of the international reaction and of the steps that might be taken, and taken irrespective of anything we might do, by the United Nations or by other African countries.
On the issues we discussed, it became quite clear that the proposal for the Treaty is not a runner. We were fully prepared to discuss it in depth, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General flew out specially for this, but it became clear that it plays no real part in Rhodesian thinking. They and we agree that constitutional safeguards should be entrenched in a Constitution, not a Treaty. Moreover, even if a Treaty were regarded as an appropriate vehicle, we should still need to agree on its contents, including the problem of the un-entrenched clauses. The Treaty idea, therefore, is dead and we agreed to pursue the discussions on the basis of amendments to be made now to the 1961 Constitution.
Sir, by last Friday morning we had made no progress, indeed there were ominous signs, not only of a breakdown of the discussions, but of imminent, illegal action.
In these circumstances I put to the Rhodesian Prime Minister two propositions. The first of these stemmed from Mr. Smith's repeated assertion that the Rhodesian people, including a majority of Africans, wanted independence on the basis of the 1961 Constitution. I proposed to him that this should be tested by a referendum of the whole Rhodesian people, whether on universal suffrage, or perhaps—we were prepared to consider this—on the basis of the present electorate plus the majority of Africans who Mr. Smith has proposed should now be added to the "B" roll voters on the single test of whether they pay taxes. There would have to be safeguards, including international, presumably British, supervision, guarantees against intimidation from either side, and freedom for lawful, constitutional political organisation and

canvassing. This would show whether Mr. Smith was right or whether those were right, European and African, who said that the country would be opposed to independence on Mr. Smith's terms. That was one proposition I put to him.
The second proposition was that Her Majesty should be recommended by the Governments, both of Britain and Rhodesia, to set up a Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of Rhodesia's Chief Justice, to recommend the amendments to the 1961 Rhodesia Constitution which would provide the basis on which Rhodesia may proceed to independence as rapidly as possible, in a manner giving effect to the principles enunciated by the British Government in our statement of 9th October, 1965, and which at the same time would be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. What we envisaged first was that the Royal Commission, in addition to taking formal evidence, should be free to make informal contacts to reach agreement on an acceptable independence constitution. Secondly, it would need to recommend how its proposals could be shown to be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. What I had in mind, therefore, was that the Commission should continue the informal consultation, should continue the work we had begun in breaking down the apparently irreconcilable and intransigent positions of those involved. For in fact what we were doing last week, and what I hope the Commission would continue, to do was to hold a running and informal Constitutional Conference, in place of the formal Conference referred to in this year's Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference communiqué, but which in present circumstances, as I frankly told those who pressed it on me, would be a meaningless gesture.
Both propositions were later put by me to the African leaders. On Friday evening my colleagues and I met the full Rhodesian Cabinet. While accepting neither of my two alternatives they came forward with a proposal which, in fact, represented a combination of them. They agreed on a Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice of Rhodesia, and proposed that one member should be nominated by the Rhodesian Government, one by Her Majesty's Government, the three to work on the basis


of a unanimous report. But, instead of the Commission proceeding from the 1961 Constitution towards an entirely new Constitution which would be generally acceptable, they proposed that it should work on a narrower canvas, namely, to receive from the two Governments an agreed draft independence arrangement, based on the 1961 Constitution, with such amendments as we might consider necessary; and that the Commission should then proceed to ascertain whether such a document was or was not acceptable to the Rhodesian people as a whole.
I believe this was a helpful, not to say ingenious, combination of our own proposals, though I should make it clear that we reserve our position on two main points. First, on our right to revert to our original concept of the Commission's powers and duties, the wider concept, not least if the Commission reported failure or could not agree when working on the narrower terms of reference. Second, on balance, we feel, and we reserved our position on this, that it might be more consistent with the responsibility which the two Governments carry in this matter, for the Commission to produce, first, an interim report to the two Governments on the methods it recommends for consulting Rhodesian opinion as a whole, and if these were accepted by the Government, to go on to supervise the consultation process.
I believe that, subject to these reservations, we now have a way in which, given good will and ordinary plain commonsense, it is possible to settle the problem on a basis acceptable to the Rhodesian people, to this Parliament and I believe to world opinion. Procedurally, at least, there is nothing to prevent an agreed settlement, and we have provided for the realisation of the fifth principle.
But the House will realise there is one outstanding difficulty. We have still to agree—as we would have had under a Treaty, or on any other basis—on the content of the document which, after approval, by the two Governments, the Commission would put to the peoples of Rhodesia. My right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend stayed on in Salisbury to seek agreement. They are now on their way back to report, but I have to tell the House that there are still important differences. The principal issues include the doctrine of the so-called

blocking third, or blocking quarter, for amendments to the Constitution of clauses which are not entrenched and also for the provision of effective safeguards for the specially entrenched clauses. The Rhodesian Government proposal to augment the elected African members for this purpose by a number of hereditary chiefs, who are of course paid by the Rhodesian Government, simply will not do. I have seen the chiefs. They cannot by the widest stretch of imagination be said to be capable of representing the African population as a whole.
Equally I am sure that the House would feel that we cannot leave without safeguards a situation which would permit, amongst other things, an independent Rhodesian Parliament without check or constitutional hindrance to reduce, as they would have the power to do, the "B" roll seats from 15 to 1, or to increase to 100 the "A" roll seats, and thus postpone for many more years the achievement of majority rule.
We have still to reach agreement. With the necessary good will, I do not see why we should not.
I simply cannot believe, now that we have got so far, that the Rhodesian Government or anyone else in their senses, could reject an agreed and constitutional means of resolving this problem, and embark on the dangerous lunacy of an illegal declaration, with all that would follow. The way is open, given the will, and now only those—and there are those—who want a U.D.I. for its own sake, or who in their hearts reject the ultimate purpose of the 1961 Constitution and of the five principles on which Mr. Smith and I have agreed to base all our discussions, could now contemplate illegal and unconstitutional action.
I apologise to the House for the length of this report, but I did not want to oversimplify it by an attempt to shorten it in view of its importance.
Sir, I hope that the House will concede that I have done everything in a man's power to avert the tragic and dangerous development which only 10 days ago was imminent, and cannot, even now, be said to have been removed, and to carry through the consultations necessary as a preliminary to any long-term solution. I hope that hon. Members will


agree, that as a result of those 10 days we can say that the door is wide open to an acceptable, agreed and constitutional solution, that we can agree that there is no case for—that we in Britain and the rest of the world could not now understand, still less condone—an attempt to solve Rhodesian problems by illegal and unconstitutional means. And I hope that they will agree that we have reached this situation without any retreat whatsoever from the principles which all parties in this House have proclaimed, without any surrender of that position of trust which we hold and must hold for the peoples—all the peoples—of Rhodesia. For that is a trust which we cannot morally escape or seek to evade; it is inescapably ours until we hand over to an independent Rhodesia not only our powers and responsibilities but also our trusteeship, on terms and on conditions which will ensure that, in letter and in spirit, the principles which have inspired that trusteeship will endure.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware—I am sure that he is—that the whole House welcomes him back warmly after a long and arduous mission—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that all of us will wish to thank him for making such a full statement to the House about the position—he has absolutely no need to apologise for its length—on the very first opportunity? It is a long statement which we have not had very much opportunity to consider. I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends or I would wish to press the right hon. Gentleman today on any details in it. We would prefer to give it careful consideration.
However, is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome the fact that he has been successful, with Mr. Smith, in creating a new piece of machinery under which these problems can be further examined? He has not disguised the fact that considerable problems still exist in the way of finding agreement between the two Governments about the specific means of realising the five principles on which both are agreed. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to give us the detailed terms of reference of the Commission when they are agreed and

the name of the representative of the British Government on the Commission.
Meantime, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that we are indeed glad that, together with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, he has been successful in creating this machinery. We certainly wish it every success in its deliberations.

The Prime Minister: I should like to express my very warm thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said on my statement and about the fact that we have been able to reach agreement on machinery. He is quite right: we have now reached agreement on an appropriate system of machinery. But, as he also pointed out, there is the problem of the content of the document that has to be put through that machinery, and this would have been a problem if we had had a treaty or anything else. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we pursued the idea of a treaty to the very fullest point—indeed we were much more active in pushing it than Mr. Smith's Government—although if we had been able to devise suitable treaty machinery rather than a Royal Commission machinery for finding out the views of the Rhodesian people we would still have had the problems I have mentioned of safeguards for the entrenched clauses and of the unentrenched constitutional safeguards.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister say whether the draft independence arrangement will contain not only the five principles—I take it that it will give effect to those—but also the arrangements for putting these principles into practice, because that would seem to be the crux of the matter? Can he say whether he is confident that the Commission will eventually only recommend and that the ultimate decision will be for the two Governments with which responsibility must rest?

The Prime Minister: The document to be submitted to the Commission—which would be an agreed Rhodesian and British document—would certainly give effect to the five principles. We could not agree to any document going forward in our name which did not give effect to those five principles. The second question which the right hon. Gentleman put is still to be


settled. I would say that both Governments could, in theory, be free to disregard the findings of this very distinguished and powerful Royal Commission. But if a Commission in which we had thefullest confidence as individuals—made up of the very distinguished Chief Justice of Rhodesia and two persons appointed by ourselves—working on the unanimity rule, were to report that the people of Rhodesia said "Yes" or "No" to this document, it would be very difficult for either of us to disregard such important evidence. The answer in theory might therefore be that either side might reserve their position, but I hope in practice that it would mean that we should accept the report.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can the Prime Minister say whether he was able to get any response from the Rhodesian Government to the appeal for the release of the large number of people in Rhodesia who are now in prison or restricted without trial? Does not he agree that this appeal has twice been made by Commonwealth Conferences but so far has been apparently rejected by the Rhodesian Government? If good will is to be established to enable the Commission to do its work, does not the Prime Minister think that the Rhodesian Government should take some action in this respect?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is extremely important that if the Commission is to be a success there must be freedom of the leaders of all sections of opinion in Rhodesia, not only to make their views known to the Commission, but also for them to be able to ensure that their supporters are equally free to make those views known. I did, of course, press this matter on Mr. Smith, and he was perfectly frank that if he could get a satisfactory assurance from the leaders in question and from any others in detention that they would revert to purely constitutional means of political activity without intimidation—there is a great deal of intimidation in Rhodesia on both sides—he would be prepared to release them from detention, from restriction, whatever it may be.
The House will know that no impediment was placed on the movement of the African Nationalist leaders and their followers from their places of detention or anywhere else to Government House for very extensive discussions with me. They

were allowed to stay in Salisbury. I rather think that they were provided with hospitality so that they could stay there as long as I was there and answer all my questions and discuss things with me. But I attach a lot of importance—and, of course, this would have been an essential feature of the first of the two propositions which I put to Mr. Smith—to the giving of assurances about constitutional and legal working without intimidation which would be necessary if we had any kind of referendum to seek the views of Rhodesian opinion.

Sir A. V. Harvie: Can the Prime Minister estimate how long it will take the Royal Commission to complete its work?

The Prime Minister: This must be a matter for the Royal Commission. I have had a very full discussion with Sir Hugh Beadle, the Chief Justice, whom we have agreed should be Chairman. He thinks that it would be able to complete its work by the turn of the year—that is, within about two months. We must leave it to the Commission.

Mr. Park: Would not the Prime Minister agree that if the membership of the Royal Commission could be enlarged to include a representative of the majority race in Rhodesia its chances of success might be greater?

The Prime Minister: In my original proposal for a Commission, which would have the much wider terms of reference of seeking to fill up a blank sheet of paper with an agreed independence constitution instead of hawking round an agreed Anglo-Rhodesian draft, I had it in mind that we should have a bigger Commission much more representative of different shades of opinion, though not as delegates but as members of the Commission. With the job which we are giving it to do, I think that a Commission of three is adequate provided that there is a unanimity rule. I have the fullest confidence in Sir Hugh Beadle—I think that all Members who know him have—not only as a distinguished judge but as a man of great humanity, which is the other necessary qualification here, and I think that I shall have the fullest confidence in whoever we nominate to the Commission.

Mr. Doughty: Will the Royal Commission issue only a final report or is there any likelihood of there being an interim report?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, the proposition put by Mr. Smith when he combined our two original propositions was that it would produce a final report saying, "Yes, the people of Rhodesia agree", or "No they do not" without giving reasons or descriptions of their procedures. We have reserved our position. On the alternative idea—I think the better and more satisfactory one—we think that the Commission should first report to Governments on the means which it intends to use for consulting Rhodesian opinion and when we have had time to consider and approve that means, as I am sure we should be able to do, then to go forward to supervise the consultation process, whether it be by referendum or other means.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be far more realistic to include an African member on the Royal Commission and that only if this is done will we be able to convince African opinion that we are really serious about eventual majority rule in Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have already dealt with this. As I have said, with a wider Commission one would have wanted it to be more representative, but I am fully convinced that we shall have a Commission that will carry conviction here. I do not think that anyone has talked to more sections of African opinion, from the extreme Right-wing—indeed, from the hereditary chiefs themselves, who were most charming but not exactly, I think, fully in touch with the situation—right through the elected Members under the B roll and to the Nationalist leaders.
I am not sure that it would be easy quickly to decide upon who should be a representative African to choose, even if one were to decide upon one—and, of course, one cannot rule out that the Rhodesian Government may nominate an African member. But I shall have full confidence—[Laughter.] Yes, they have a lot of Africans on their side, although what we want to know is whether they have all the Africans on their side.

Mr. Ennals: May I ask the Prime Minister whether not only the final recommendations of the Commission will be laid before the House for its approval, but also the method of consulting the Africans in the interim report?

The Prime Minister: If we get an interim report. It is, of course, a matter on which, on receipt, we would immediately report to the House and would state the views of Her Majesty's Government upon it if it is done by that method. Obviously, when the Commission as a whole reports, we shall make a report to the House. The report will be published and the House will be free to take action thereupon. But, of course, the House still holds the ultimate control. There can be no independence legally for Rhodesia except on the basis of a Bill carried through this House and another place. We hold the ultimate control. I hope that no one in Rhodesia fails to recognise that fact. If anybody fails to recognise it, it is through no fault of mine last week.

Mr. Hooson: Is the Prime Minister fully satisfied that Mr. Smith has no intention of making a unilateral declaration of independence until the Royal Commission has reported, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has stated that differences of opinion still exist? Do I understand that the Rhodesian Government have absolutely accepted the idea of the Royal Commission and that any action will be delayed until that Commission has reported?

The Prime Minister: We worked very hard, all of us, representatives of both Governments, to try to find a means of an agreed settlement. I believe that we negotiated in good faith. Although even on Thursday night or Friday morning it looked as though it would break down and there was ominous evidence that a U.D.I. was in prospect within a day or two, we agreed on Friday night on the procedure by which African opinion could be consulted. I am in no doubt at all that Mr. Smith, in accepting that procedure, intended that procedure to be carried right through to the end in the hope of reaching an agreement.
I have referred, as the hon. and learned Member rightly says, to the fact that we have not agreed the document to be


submitted. I said quite frankly that the threat of a U.D.I. has not entirely receded. I hope that now that we have got so far and covered so much of the ground and reached agreement on the vital fifth principle, the pressures which there are in Rhodesia for a U.D.I. notwithstanding, the views of those who seem to have a death wish upon them rather than a wish to get an agreed settlement will not prevail over Mr. Smith and his colleagues. Speaking for myself, I am still very hopeful that Mr. Smith will feel that we have an adequate procedure, whatever might be our differences on the content of the document.

Mr. Jackson: Can my right hon. Friend give a general idea concerning the question of intensive educational programmes and what would be the reaction of the Rhodesian Government to British aid?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had intensive discussions on this matter. All of us are keen on this. Indeed, when all the history of these interchanges becomes known, the House will find how very strongly this was pressed upon the Rhodesian Government by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)—indeed, on the Government of Mr. Winston Field—as a means of giving effect to the built-in provisions of the 1961 Constitution to allow more Africans to qualify on the "A" roll.
At all times in the last year we have pressed this upon Mr. Smith. We made very clear last week that we would co-operate with them, not only in an educational programme designed to provide more facilities for primary and secondary education, but—a thing which I have stressed many times—an educational programme for training Africans in various aspects of administration—technical training for industrial work, but, perhaps no less important, training even in such things, which are necessary to all civilised communities, as the collection of taxes, exchequer and audit control, surveying and hospital administration, all these things. This is vital to the future of Rhodesia on a multi-racial basis and we have offered our fullest support and financial aid in securing this.

Mr. Speaker: There has been a good run of questions. I think that the House

would wish to consider the statement to which it has just listened. I hope that we may now proceed to the Orders of the Day.

Following is the statement:
The Government have decided to make clear the facts about yesterday's breakdown in the discussions between H.M. Government and the Rhodesian Ministers which have taken place at the Commonwealth Relations Office and at 10 Downing Street.
2. The meetings held this week have been in continuance of the discussions initiated during the visit of the Commonwealth Secretary and Lord Chancellor to Salisbury last February. Since that time H.M. Government have been patiently and genuinely seeking to remove the differences between the two Governments in extensive exchanges with the Rhodesian Prime Minister. These discussions themselves have been a continuation of negotiations begun by the previous British Government. The Government have also kept in close and continuous touch with all other Commonwealth Governments who throughout have shown their interest in the problem. They have been guided in the talks by the considerations explained to Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in June 1965 and, as they undertook at that Meeting, have continued in their discussions with the Government of Rhodesia to take full account of all the views expressed by other Commonwealth Governments.
3. The Government look forward to the day when Rhodesia will be able to take her place among the fully independent members of the Commonwealth, but H.M. Government must insist that the responsibility for the grant of full independence rests with Parliament, that Parliament has a responsibility which cannot be abrogated towards all the peoples of Rhodesia and that the Government would be able to recommend the grant of full independence to Rhodesia only if certain conditions were fulfilled.
4. In the discussions with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia this week the Government made clear, as they had done throughout the discussions with the Rhodesian Government over recent months, that, before agreeing to the grant of independence, they would need to be satisfied on the following essential points:—

1. The principle and intention of unimpeded progress to majority rule, already enshrined in the 1961 Constitution, would have to be maintained and guaranteed.
2. There would also have to be guarantees against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution.
3. There would have to be immediate improvement in the political status of the African population.
4. There would have to be progress towards ending racial discrimination.
5. The British Government would need to be satisfied that any basis proposed for independence was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.



5. These principles are in conformity with the undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Secretary to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in June, 1965.
6. The Prime Minister of Rhodesia made certain proposals designed to meet the principles which the British Government laid down and in particular stated the view of his Government on the five principles as follows:

I. The 1961 Constitution provides, in the qualifications governing the franchise, for an increasing number of Africans, to be entitled to vote and the question of guarantees against retrogression is essentially a matter of providing suitable mechanism (see II below).
II. The Government of Rhodesia proposed the addition of a Senate (to be composed of 12 Chiefs elected by the Chief's Council) which would vote with the Assembly at third readings on any question affecting the revision of the entrenched clauses.

This would replace the referendum procedure under the 1961 Constitution.
III. The Government of Rhodesia stated that their proposal for a Senate to be composed of 12 African Chiefs represented a major advance for Africans. They could not contemplate any increased representation for Africans in the Assembly, while so many Africans rejected the opportunities offered under the present Constitution, but they were prepared to consider an extension of the B roll franchise, for example by admitting to it all tax payers.
IV. The Government of Rhodesia stated that they wished to see an end to racial discrimination by an evolutionary process, but they could not agree to the repeal of the Land Apportionment Act.
V. The Government of Rhodesia claimed that they had already demonstrated that the majority of the people of Rhodesia desired independence on the basis of the present Constitution; this had been shown by their consultation of tribal opinion and the referendum of the electorate.
8. The Government do not consider that these proposals provide any positive advancement for Africans in the political and social fields, any fully effective safeguards against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution, or adequate means of consultation with African opinion in Rhodesia on the Rhodesian Government's proposals for independence.
9. In particular, the Government cannot accept that representations of the Chiefs can be regarded as adequately representing Africans throughout Rhodesia as a whole. The Government of Rhodesia held an Indaba of Chiefs and Headmen in October of last year to which they invited the British Government to send observers. The previous Administration took the view that the procedure proposed would not provide conclusive evidence of the wishes of the people and that it would not therefore be appropriate for them to nominate observers.

This was confirmed by the Government immediately after taking office last October.
10. It must be repeated that it has been the aim of successive British Governments to bring remaining British territories to independence on the basis of democratic government and the principle of universal adult suffrage. The past in every case, with the exception of the Union of South Africa in 1910, majority rule has been established before the grant of independence. Moreover in all cases where there has been any doubt of the views of the population as a whole, the people have been consulted either in a general election or by means of a referendum on their wishes for independence on the terms proposed. In the case of Rhodesia the only territory except South Africa to request independence without majority rule, and the only territory where the Opposition has not been included in a Constitutional Conference, it is doubly important to have the views of the Rhodesian people as a whole that they both desire independence and desire it on the terms proposed by their Government. It is therefore doubly important that the mechanism whereby the feelings of the Rhodesian people is to be ascertained, must be fully democratic.
11. In these circumstances no basis at present exists on which the British Government would feel justified in granting independence to Rhodesia.
12. In view of public statements made by Rhodesian Ministers the Prime Minister thought it right again to remind Mr. Smith of the grave consequences of unilateral action. There should be no delusions in Rhodesia about the ability or determination of the British Government to deal with the utmost firmness with any act of rebellion; or about the effects of the mass of international condemnation to which Rhodesia would expose herself. Having cut herself off from the Crown and from Britain, Rhodesia would find herself practically friendless in the face of the almost solid hostility of the world.
13. It is now for the Government and people of Rhodesia to take serious stock of the position in the interests of the future of their country. It remains the wish of the Government to see Rhodesia achieve independence as soon as possible, through peaceful discussion, on a basis which is fair and just to all. They stand firmly by the principle of unimpeded progress to majority rule and the need to secure a settlement which is acceptable to the people of the country as a whole. They will continue to strive for effective negotiation towards independence on that basis.
14. It is the sincere hope of the Government that the Rhodesian Government will not decide in favour of a course which will be fraught with such serious consequences for all, but most of all for Rhodesians themselves. The Prime Minister outlined alternative courses which would provide for the steady advancement of democracy in their country, leading to early independence on the basis of co-operation between the races and designed to ensure the future happiness and peace of all the peoples in the country.

Orders of the Day — RENT BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(REGULATED TENANCIES.)

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 11, leave out from "London" to end of line and insert:
£350, in the Special Review Areas in England and Wales (as defined by section 17(1)(a) and (2), section 25 and the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act 1958) £200, and elsewhere in Great Britain £150;

4.17 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This matter was one of the themes which ran through our discussion of the Rent Bill right from the earliest moments in Committee down to the finishing stages on Report. The arguments about the exact level at which to fix the rateable value limits to regulated tenancies were exhaustively discussed. It is true that in its debates another place got a good deal nearer to us than the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and his right hon. and hon. Friends in this House. I recognize that the approach which has been made in the Lords Amendment is an attempt to be reasonable about the position.
The suggestion in the Amendment is that there should be three, instead of two, levels: first, there should be London; then there should be the special review areas—this is an attempt to arrive at an area which is recognised as being one of overcrowding and shortage and an area in which there is need for rent regulation; and, finally, the rest of the country. The fact that the other place, with all its skill and experience, did not manage to find a better yardstick than the special review areas shows the difficulty in doing it.
I do not think that the special review area basis would stand up for one moment as a definition and criterion of an area which should have the higher rateable value limit. The Merseyside

special review area is a case in point. It would mean that Runcorn and Widnes would come within the higher rateable value limit, whereas St. Helens and Warrington would be outside it. That is a position for which it would be difficult to find any kind of justification, because, if anything, I should think that in the bigger towns there is more likely to be a need for this provision. Therefore, we have reluctantly to abandon the idea of having a middle kingdom represented by the special review areas in which the higher rateable value will be applied. So we are left with London and the rest of the country.
I do not want again to go over all the complicated debate which took place about the pros and cons of different figures. I want only to recapitulate what seem to me to be the main points. First of all, my right hon. Friend has power to reduce the rateable value where he feels there is no need to keep the higher figure. Therefore, when one is uncertain, as, frankly, we are, because nobody really knows, till we get down to examine the position in detail and we get the rent officers looking at the problem, how many cases there will be, how many disputes there are going to be, it is prudent to keep the higher figure, with the idea that we can reduce it if the flow of experience shows that it is desirable. That is better than starting with a low figure and then learning from bitter experience that one has miscalculated and having a whole range of property which one would like to cover but cannot.
The other argument which is advanced is that in the higher ranges we have got a free market because rich men are negotiating with rich men, and rich men can employ expert advisers, and between them they can have a battle. It is great fun for all and there is a free market. I do not know really that that is a very reliable argument. I must say that in our fan mail when this was under discussion in another place we did get one or two letters from people who very much objected to the idea that they were to lose the protection of this rent regulation. Therefore I was surprised to find that apparently there are unsatisfied tenants among the people who are paying high rents, as there are among those who are paying lower rents. I think the explanation is that it does not at all follow that because one


is in a very expensive house one likes paying for a very expensive house or that one can afford to pay for it. As long as there is a shortage of accommodation people have to take places which are beyond what they would like to pay, and they are very often the people who feel it most. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman when he examines his fan mail from people on the implication of rates—he has made some very moving speeches about this recently—will agree that many people who complain most strongly about the burden of rates are those in the higher bracket of ratepayers.
Therefore, I think that the safest thing to do is to keep the figure in the Bill as it left this House, with, as I say—and I repeat it—the possibility that if it is found later on by my right hon. Friend that we have been over-cautious then it will be possible to adjust it downwards later.

Mr. Graham Page: As the hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary said, this subject has been exhaustively discussed at earlier stages of this Bill, and we are now a good deal nearer on the figures with the figures in the Lords Amendment and those which the Government have in the Bill. In fact, I would have thought that with this Amendment we had got so near that for the Government to oppose the Lords Amendment is not firm government or administrative determination, as they may have us believe, but just pig-headed obstinacy.
Time and time again in the course of this Bill the Government have told us, "We put limits in Clause 1 higher than necessary. We know there is no shortage of housing at those very high figures, £400 rateable value in London and £200 elsewhere, but we want the rent officers to see what a free market looks like, and so we are going to bring some of the free market into the regulation. We are not putting on control for control's sake."
I would have thought this a typical example of doing it, of saying that it is better that there should be too much control rather than too little. On this side, we say that there should be neither too much nor too little. We want the Government to get it right.
In drafting the Bill, the Government set certain limits to its application. They could have said, "We are not going to put any limits on all houses which are privately let which come within regulation." But the Government did not. They said that dwellings with a rateable value exceeding £400 in London and £200 elsewhere should remain outside the scheme. So the principle of laying down a limit by rateable value is not in dispute. It is just that the Lords Amendment in this case draws the line at a different point, sets the limit at a different level, and on this side of the House we think it is now at the right level in the Lords Amendment. Of course, at this stage I do not think there really is any argument on a matter of principle. I shall endeavour to confine my words to matters of practice, to what is practicable, in bringing in this scheme of regulation.
Let us make it quite clear that we on this side have said that where there is a housing shortage we like the scheme of regulation; we prefer it to control; but we want to make it workable, and we do not think it will be workable if it is operated to excess, and if the scheme is extended too much. It should be restricted to where it is absolutely necessary. The Government appear to be suspicious about any restriction of the scheme at all. They, therefore—I understand the argument—reject this Lords Amendment, which may remove quite a small area where regulation is not unnecessary, but which at least would restrict the work of the rent officers, the work of the rent assessment committees, the whole scheme, to a field where it will be of some real use, where it is of real need.
In opposing this Amendment in another place and trying to justify the figures of £400 rateable value in London and £200 elsewhere two arguments were put forward by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. Those two arguments, if I understand them correctly, were, first, that at the last election the Labour Party made a certain promise to repeal the Rent Act and unless the rateable values were fixed at these figures the Government would not be carrying out that promise. He said that
what we are doing by this Bill is effectively carrying out an election promise to repeal


the 1957 Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd July, 1965; Vol. 268, c. 922.]
Explaining his argument he said:
The percentages I gave related to a gross value. They are arrived at so as to produce in the country as a whole the same result as existed under the 1957 control.
That is, pre-1957 Rent Act.
After all, if we did not at any rate try to do that, we should hardly be carrying out the promise we made to repeal the 1957 Act itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd July, 1965; Vol. 268, c. 925.]
In presenting that point he said:
If we are going to apply it at all, then let us see that we apply it fully and see that there is the power to reduce the amount under a later clause by such steps and in such areas as are necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd July, 1965; Vol. 268, c. 928.]
I think that those are pretty poor arguments to justify an extension of the scheme beyond its real needs.
4.30 p.m.
Let me look for a moment at this idea of restoring the pre-1957 position to carry out an election pledge. If one is dealing with people, this is a completely phoney idea. Eight years after 1957 one is not giving back to identical individuals anything which one thinks was taken away from them in 1957. This seemed to be the sort of appeal which the Minister was trying to put over in a speech which he made outside this House a few days ago—that he was giving something back to individuals who lost it in 1957. That is not so. This is purely an exercise with property, not with people. It is an exercise to restore the pre-1957 position.
The exercise, as I understand it, is this: before 1957 there were 160,000 privately-owned houses above the rateable value limit of control. The Government's figures in the Bill of rateable value £400 in London and £200 elsewhere will leave the same number out of regulation, so, hey presto, the Rent Act is repealed. This is rather a kid's game at figures. That 160,000 which is to remain outside regulation is taking the country as a whole. The figure given includes London, and we are told that pre-1957 30,000 London dwellings were left outside control. Under the Bill 15,000 London dwellings will remain outside regulation, but this disregards all new dwellings which may be brought within it.
The argument put forward to justify the opposition to the Lords Amendment merely dealt with the numbers left out of regulation by the Government's drafting of the Bill, and was aimed at showing that that was about the same figure as was left out of control before the 1957 Rent Act. Let me repeat the figures for London. Before 1957, 30,000 houses were outside control. Under the Bill as drafted by the Government there will be 15,000 such houses. My estimate is that 39,000 London dwellings will be left outside control by the Lords Amendment. As a fact that figure is very much nearer the Government's professed object of restoring the pre-1957 position with regard to London, so they can be assured that if they accept the Lords Amendment, in London at any rate they will be very near to keeping their promise about the Rent Act. With regard to the rest of England and Wales—and I omit Scotland because it is almost impossible to find the right figures when one is talking about rateable value—about 145,000 will be left out by the Bill as drafted, as against 130,000 before the 1957 Act.
Those figures relate to privately-owned dwellings within the rateable value limits, whatever tenure they may be, whether they be let or whether they be owner-occupied. Taking the Milner Holland Report figures of the number of privately owned houses which are let in London, we get anything between one-quarter and a half of that figure, so we are talking about leaving out of the regulation scheme one-quarter to one-half of 160,000 dwellings, which is 40,000 to 80,000. That is quite a substantial figure when represented by the work which the rent officers will have to undertake, and which the rent assessment committees will have to review from time to time, and if, as I am suggesting, it is necessary to bring those within the scheme, then we are relieving the scheme of some unnecessary work by omitting them.
But is that the right way to justify the restoration of pre-1957 control—to count those which are left out of control or those which are left out of regulation? Is not this another rather "phoney" idea? Why not count those which are brought in? After all, we are trying to set up a scheme, and trying to make it workable, and I should have thought that the right argument was: we are leaving so


many within the scheme, it will be able to cope with them, and it is necessary to bring in the number.
The figure given by the Government spokesman in another place, and also earlier in these proceedings by the right hon. Gentleman himself, was that in England and Wales 800,000 dwellings would come within regulation, including 300,000 in Greater London. I cannot see how those figures work out, because there are 3¾ million rented dwellings, of which 2½ million are under control, which, between control and the top figure of rented dwellings, leaves 1½ million uncontrolled at present, of which only about 40,000 to 80,000 are to be left outside control.
If one works out those figures, they do not all add up, but I will take the Government's figure of the number being brought into regulation, with the qualification that I think a lot more will come in. Rent officers will have to operate 80,000 houses.
That brings me to the second argument put forward against the Amendment in another place, namely, that it does not hurt anybody if we bring into regulation more than is necessary. It does. It hurts those for whom regulation is necessary, because it clogs up the machinery. It clogs up the system of regulation if those who do not need this sort of protection are brought in.
If the figures are right, we are setting up a system to deal with 800,000 rented houses—300,000 in London, and 500,000 in the rest of England.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why that should clog up the machinery? If there is no need for assistance, the case will not be brought before the machinery. Therefore, I cannot see any truth in what he is saying.

Mr. Page: There is no need to protect people of this type—I shall elaborate that a little later—but if they are given the right to go to a rent officer or to a rent assessment committee to have their rent regulated, many will exercise that right. No one will be able to refuse them. Those who exercise that right will have no real need to do so, but they will clog up the machinery.

Mr. Allaun: The hon. Gentleman is denying what he has just said. If these people can bring their cases before the machinery, presumably they are being overcharged, and therefore they have a right to be included, as we on this side of the House wish them to be.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is saying that every plaintiff who brings a claim in court wins his case, which is not so.
The argument that I would like to put forward is that it is far more important to prepare for the future of bringing controlled dwellings within the scheme of regulation than it is to deal with higher rateable values and rents which do not need the protection of regulation. After all, as I understand him, the Minister's intentions are to bring within regulation some two and a half million controlled properties. That will be beneficial to all when it can be operated by the scheme. So we do not want to use the scheme for delaying that operation by bringing into the scheme the higher rented properties, and we can relieve the scheme of something between 10,000 and 20,000 properties outside London and between 6,000 and 12,000 within London.
I want to say a word about why we support the Lords' Amendments in what the Parliamentary Secretary described as the middle kingdom, with a particular figure referring to the development districts.

Mr. MacColl: They are called "special review areas", not "development districts".

Mr. Page: I beg the Parliamentary Secretary's pardon: the special review areas. They are mainly the conurbations where there are severe housing shortages, and one has to draw the line somewhere. If the line takes in Runcorn and Widnes and leaves out St. Helens, it is a matter of drawing a line at some point. Incidentally, that proves the point that I hope to make, that when you introduce a new industry into one of the special review areas there is a scramble for housing. To go back on the introduction of industry into Merseyside, when Fords came in there was more of a scramble for housing in Runcorn and Widnes than there was in St. Helens. Protection should therefore be a little higher within


special review areas than elsewhere to cope with that situation, and we have set it at the figure at which the Government have set it in the rest of the country.
We are talking in these figures in terms of rateable values. If we knew exactly what that meant in terms of rents, we should all be a lot wiser and we should probably be able to put our arguments forward much better. Various factors have been given as the multipliers of rateable value and gross value in order to discover what they mean in terms of rental value, but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister said when we came to the fair rent Clause in earlier debates, he could not accept any considerations based on rateable values. So it is extremely difficult to work from rateable values to rents, and I do not think that one multiplier could apply, certainly to Greater London. One can choose an average figure, but the average figure takes in such very wide extremes that it is not of very great value.
It is even worse if you try to apply an average figure to the rest of the country. I think that my guess is as good as anyone else's, and I believe that the Government's figure of a rateable value of £400 in Greater London means that we are dealing with premises which would not let anywhere in London at under £600 per annum, plus rates. That means that we are talking about people with incomes of between £2,500 and £3,000 per year, if one takes something like 25 per cent. of a person's income as being spent on housing accommodation. We are not dealing necessarily with what the Parliamentary Secretary described as rich men bargaining with rich men. I admit that here we are in the class of what might be called the middle income group, of the £2,500 to £5,000 a year man. I have no doubt that such people do have financial difficulties with increasing costs of accommodation, certainly in London. But we should not use this expensive system of regulation, with rent officers and rent assessment committees, for the benefit of people with that sort of income.
Milner Holland found no shortages of rents at over £500, a year in London, and that should be our limit under the Bill, translated into rateable values for London and elsewhere as best we can. If the Government argue that there is a

shortage of those rents, the remedy is to let the developers get on with the production of dwellings for that type of person. But that seems to be beyond the capacity of the Government. By cutting house-building, they are only causing the rents and prices of houses to go up, and then they use the increases as an excuse for putting on controls.
Our whole case in support of the Lords' Amendment is that it draws the line at the right point and prevents the regulation machinery, which can otherwise be of great value to those in hardship, being clogged up by unnecessary cases.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) rightly said that this subject has been exhaustively discussed at every stage of the Bill, and I do not wish to prolong the discussion. I might not have said anything at all, except that the hon. Gentleman rather provoked me with his remark about the Government opposing the Lords' Amendment because of pig-headed obstinacy. It is the Lords who have displayed pig-headed obstinacy in putting the Amendment into the Bill in the face of all the reasonable and thorough arguments which took place in Committee while the Bill was passing through the House.
To me, it is a fairly transparent device to keep altering the figure by £50 so as to bring it closer to the original rateable value limit in the Bill, which will enable us to return to the old subject once again, when I should have thought that we had had quite enough discussion about it. The Minister has said time and again that if experience shows that any of these rateable value limits which are set out in the Bill are too high, he will be ready to use his powers to reduce them to an appropriate level, as and when that evidence is available. I would point out to the hon. Member for Crosby that no power exists in the Bill for the Minister to increase the rateable values if we agree with the Lords' Amendment and subsequently find that we have made a mistake. That would be irreparable, whereas if they are left as they were before the Lords put in their Amendment, it can be dealt with in the way that the Minister has described.
No doubt the hon. Member for Crosby has great knowledge of the situation in Greater London, but it has not been proved to my satisfaction that free market conditions apply at the level of rateable value set out in the Bill. Although Milner Holland has been quoted in support of the present proposition, I understand that the Ministry has information which shows that there is serious doubt about the conclusion of Milner Holland, and certainly if the hon. Gentleman has studied the debate in another place with his usual thoroughness he will have noticed that the multiplier used to get from rateable values to rents which was quoted in the House was disputed by the Government spokesman in the other place. He said that the figure should not be between 2 and 2½ times the rateable value, but something between 1 and 1½ times. If there is that wide difference of opinion as to what the figures are, I suggest that by far the most sensible solution is to leave the rateable value as it is. Even if we admit that free market conditions apply in Greater London at £400 rateable value, we need not accept the Opposition's argument. I hope hon. Members from other parts of the country will forgive me if I relate my remarks mainly to Greater London—it helps to concentrate one's thinking.
The Minister has explained many times that he has purposely set the limits rather high so that we can get experience of what the rents are at the free market level. Therefore, if £400 is within this bracket, as the hon. Member for Crosby claims, so much the better, because it gives a guide as to what the fair rent should be somewhat lower in the scale. I do not say that there should be an exact arithmetical relationship between the two, but if the fair rent of a dwelling-house of rateable value of £400 is, say, £600 per annum, the fair rent of a dwelling-house of rateable value £300 would be about £450. I would not say that this is an exact relationship, but it does give rent officers and rent assessment committees some guidance. There is available very little information on this relationship between rateable values and rents, and we shall obtain it by setting this level of £400.
I find it very difficult to understand why the Opposition have continually and

violently objected to all these rateable value limits. I cannot imagine what social or moral injustice they think will arise from setting these limits. The only substantial argument I heard from the hon. Member for Crosby just now was that relating to the scarcity of experts. Perhaps he would refresh his memory by looking at paragraph 6 of Schedule 3, which sets out what is supposed to happen when the landlord and the tenant agree on the fair rent which the hon. Gentleman says ought to apply at these levels.
By this paragraph, the landlord and the tenant jointly make application to the rent officer who
… after making such inquiry, if any, as he thinks fit … may register that rent without further proceedings …
What could be simpler than that?
This idea that the rent officers will be grossly overburdened dealing with people in dwellings in this rateable value bracket is quite ludicrous. I do not think that they will all exploit the machinery in the way the hon. Gentleman has described. In nearly every case, the reasonable thing will be for the landlord and the tenant to go jointly to the rent officer and register the fair rent, and that is an end of the matter. The rent officers can then get on with their work lower down the rateable value scale.
If there is any exploitation—and I am glad that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) brought this out—if the hon. Member for Crosby is wrong and there is any exploitation at the top end of the scale, by all means let us give the tenants the opportunity to use the machinery in the Bill. I do not believe that to be the case, but those people have every right to use the machinery, and it is correct to leave things as they are.
In short, it is quite unrealistic to say that we shall clog the machinery by leaving the rateable value limits as they were, at £400 in Greater London. I wish I could get this into the hon. Gentleman's head and that he would accept the position. As it is, I think that he and his colleagues only pursue this question in order to be difficult and to delay the Bill to the very last stage because, fundamentally, they do not agree with the principle of the Bill but dare not say so on the


Floor of the House as they know how unpopular it would make them with their constituents. So all the time they pay lip service to the principles of the Bill but all the time they think of the landlords.

Mr. Frank Allaun: This is a bad and thoroughly reactionary Amendment. It is natural that Conservatives in both Houses should unite to reduce the area of the Bill's application. Speaking personally, far from reducing its application I would extend it. As West German experience shows, we get involved in tremendous trouble when we try to divide the country into areas of less shortage and greater shortage. This Amendment would make the situation even worse.
The main argument advanced by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is that no protection is needed in these higher ranges. I doubt that, but, if no protection is needed tenants will not seek it. Members of the Opposition are being very contradictory in what they propose this afternoon. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that enough has been said on this point in our lengthy earlier proceedings, and I, too, cannot avoid the suspicion that the main object of this and some of the other Amendments is to delay the operation of the Bill—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Not suspicion—it is a certainty.

Mr. Allaun: There is no doubt that the other House could have got this Bill through at the beginning of August but, as a result of delay there, tenants have been paying exorbitant rents for four months. Should the Lords further delay the Bill for a year, as they could if they did not accept the views of this House within the next few days, all our work would have gone for nothing. We would have to start right at the beginning again, and that would mean a delay not just of four months but of sixteen months before this beneficent Bill became law. The Lords are on very dangerous ground in thwarting the will of the elected representatives—

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member is now arguing that the Government should accept all the Lords Amendments so that the Bill can go through without returning to another place.

Mr. Allaun: On the contrary, I am suggesting that the Lords are putting forward these Amendments precisely in order to stop the Bill going through.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has made that point about delaying the Bill, because I had intended to preface my remarks by saying that, as we want to get the Bill through quickly, let us get the Lords Amendments agreed as they are. I thoroughly disagree with the statement of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that Conservative Members seek to pay lip-service to the Bill but do not support it. We have put down many Amendments to the Bill and have improved it immensely. It is only fair that the hon. Member should withdraw that remark. The Minister himself has said that some of our Amendments have improved the Bill; indeed, some of the Amendments made in the Lords have arisen from proposals we made.
For the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he is preventing rich men from arguing with rich men is one of the most extraordinary arguments ever put forward on behalf of a Socialist Government. He ignores the fact that a number of landlords are not rich men, and that a number of the properties we have in mind are owned by very respectable property companies, the shares of which are held by many pensions funds and small investors. The Government get into a great muddle over the Bill, and over this Amendment, because of their complete belief that no private enterprise will ever again build flats for rent. If they could only get that idea out of their heads it would help enormously.
I support the Lords Amendment for the basic reason that if this figure is pitched too high we will stop private builders, private property companies, building flats to rent. There is still a demand for this type of flat, but while we can expect the private investors—the insurance companies and property companies—to build flats, they will not build them inside the controlled range, because they can see that the investment for their shareholders could be counteracted by a rent officer. They will, therefore, build flats above this range. They will then build flats in a market which is saturated already.
The Government should take a broader look at this matter and encourage people to build flats in a range where they are most needed. Unless the Government do so, every flat built for rent will be council property. They have to get below this figure, not above it. Do they accept the Milner Holland Report or not? I thought that the Government accepted it. The Milner Holland Committee has reported that in this range there is a normal free market.

5.0 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): The Milner Holland Report, in the passage referred to, so far as I remember referred not to rateable value but to rents.

Mr. Costain: I have not got the Report with me and I must accept the Minister's correction, but that does not invalidate my argument. We must give encouragement, particularly at this top range, to get private enterprise to build.
Time and again in the last Parliament I made passionate appeals to the Labour Party to make a statement on what they would do about rent controls, guaranteeing that large numbers of flats would be built if the position were made clear. Let us keep this figure at a point where it can be controlled if control is wanted and not restrict new development.

Sir Barnett Janner: I had not intended to intervene until I heard the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I am not surprised at the kind of argument he has put forward, because it was typical of the kind of argument he used in all our debates relating to reasonable rentals. From his point of view it does not matter whether the rent is reasonable or not, let free enterprise have its fling and let people build to let at such prices as they want to get.

Mr. Costain: I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to put words in my mouth. I did not say that. What I said was that we must get the greatest amount of competition in areas where competition can play a part.

Sir B. Janner: I appreciate that—so let the rentals be such as are available in a free, competitive market, irrespective of

whether they are fair and reasonable. I gather that that is the view the hon. Member takes. I think quite differently. This Bill was introduced with a view to protecting tenants, not to give them tenancies at an unreasonably low figure, but at a reasonable figure. If the hon. Member believes in reasonable rentals he has nothing to fear about the rateable value being extended to the range which the other place has attempted to reduce.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), the hon. Member for Crosby said that not all plaintiffs succeed. The question is not whether all plaintiffs succeed but whether a tenant should be entitled to be a plaintiff. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that, although there may be abuses in litigation when a person seeks an inquiry, the use of the system should not be denied to anyone who feels that he has a legitimate cause for complaint. That is all we are asking.
Those who occupy these houses will not rush indiscriminately for the fun of it into inquiries relating to their rentals. If they are satisfied that the rent is a reasonable one and they are earning enough for it to be considered reasonable, they will not seek to use the machinery. On the other hand, surely if a person is earning £2,000 or £2,500 he may have very heavy obligations, feel that he is hard done by and that it is not proper that he should pay the rent he is called upon to pay. He should then be entitled to use the machinery made available by this Bill.
I hope that, in the circumstances, hon. Members will realise that there is a lot to be said for this. In spite of reasoned arguments put forward from this side of the House, attempts are being made to throw a sledge hammer into the machinery of this Measure. Hon. Members opposite are seeking to hold it up irrespective of whether they say yea or nay. Their attitude is an indication of how they are trying to prevent this Measure getting on to the Statute Book. They are seeking an excuse so that later they may be able to wriggle out of the position if this Measure is prevented from going through. I appeal to them for their own sakes, for when they face their constituents they will find they are


in a sorry position if they pursue this kind of action.

Mr. Norman Cole: We have heard two very extraordinary speeches. One was made by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and the other by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). The hon. Member for Salford, East seems to have taken on the mantle of the Socialist Party. I have been in this House for many years and I now find the Socialist Party fighting the battle of those who earn more than £2,500 a year.
The hon. Member for Orpington pontificated for about 10 minutes on the way in which we should debate anything in this House. He suggested that we should not debate these Amendments. What are we here for if we are not to debate matters which come to us? I have no doubt that later today we shall be debating matters put forward by the Government in the House of Lords and we shall go on debating them until we are satisfied. Let us have no more talk about delaying the Bill.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) was doing the same kind of thing. Why is there this sudden departure as to our usual practice of debate on Lords Amendments? Are we supposed to deal with Lords Amendments in 10 minutes and consider that to be the end of the story? If so, we might as well go home. Discussion of these matters should be in the House of Commons. As to the suggestion that the House of Lords might obstruct our procedure, we all know that if we complete consideration of these Amendments tonight or tomorrow morning, the Bill will be ready for the Royal Assent later this week.
The hon. Member for Orpington spoke about limits set in the Bill and the possibility that the Government, certainly in the initial stages, might not use them. He has more faith in the Government than I have. I am certain that the Government will go up to the £400 limit in London and £200 in the rest of the country.

Mr. Lubbock: I did not say that the Government would start with the limits as set out in the Bill. I said that we have an undertaking from the Minister himself, which is on the record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that if he finds in the light

of experience that it is not necessary to have the regulation machinery applying up to £400 he will be prepared to reduce it later.

Mr. Cole: That is so naïve that it is not true. I do not know how it is to be discovered from experience that the upper limits are not needed, if they are not first put into operation.
One anomaly which will arise is in connection with blocks of flats of varying rents, some rents being as high as £600, £700 and £800. I postulate a block of flats where six flats will be subject to this Measure when enacted but six other flats in the block will be outside the Act. This is the sort of thing the rent officer will discover. The tenant of one flat in the block will be asked what his rateable figure is. He will say £425. He will be told that the rent officer cannot deal with him because he is outside the Measure. The man will reply, "But you dealt with my neighbour". The rent officer will answer that that was because his rate figure was £385.
We are not arguing about £50 only. The suggestion that we are quibbling about the difference between £350 and £400 is nonsense. It is much more than that. The extra £50 will probably bring in a much larger percentage of the higher rental flats. It does not go up by £50. Fifty pounds in this connotation in London probably means another £250 in rent. I cannot speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I regard this as a very serious matter. I should like to see the £350 reduced to £250.
Whether the Minister believes this or not, I believe in the Bill. I believe that it will be a good Bill if it is properly drawn. However, like so many Socialist good ideas, it started off on the wrong foot and it has been handled in the wrong way. I prophesy that an amending Act will be needed within 12 months to correct the mistakes in this Measure. I should like to see the Bill work. I am just as keen on it as the Minister is. What I am not keen on is bogging it down with a lot of Socialist doctrines and spoiling the things which could be done properly by the Bill for people in accommodation of smaller rateable values. I hope that we shall divide on this.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I do not know why hon. Members opposite are


getting so hot under the collar about what seems to me to be an extremely petty Amendment. The Amendment deals with the position in this country in two parts—one in relation to London, and the other in relation, broadly speaking, to outside London, though it divides it up.
There seems to be no difference between the Government and the Opposition as to what the proper maximum should be for the area outside London. We are agreed that it should be £200. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), whose experience outside London is very considerable, accepts that. The only difference between the two sides of the House as to the area outside London is that the Lords Amendment would split the area into two parts, one having a maximum of £200 and the other a maximum of £150. In other words, the Lords want to do my right hon. Friend's job for him under Clause 12, but to do it in advance in the form of legislation rather than leaving it to him to decide in what areas it is right and proper that that maximum of £200 should be reduced to something lower.
The Lords do it in a way which the hon. Member for Crosby has recognised is completely anomalous, because they do it in such a way that areas like St. Helens and Warrington, which the hon. Gentleman agrees have a greater problem than areas such as Runcorn, are necessarily to have a statutory lower maximum than areas which are in the Special Review Areas referred to in the Amendment. Why not leave it to my right hon. Friend to do the thing, not in an anomalous way, but in a sensible way and to decide, if necessary within quite a short period, that the figure should be reduced for areas outside London which do not justify the maximum of £200? Why incorporate it in the Bill in a way which is bound to creat anomalies?
5.15 p.m.
There is no difference in principle between the two sides of the House as to the area outside London, apart from the desire of the Opposition, as it appears, to insert an anomaly into the Bill. Why should we dispute about that?
Perhaps I might be permitted to say to the hon. Member for Crosby that it

is possible that from personal experience I know more about the London area than he does, great as his knowledge is. I recognise the extent of his knowledge. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument to try to discover what was the concrete point which persuaded him that the maximum should be £350 for London rather than £400. I heard him say—I agree with him—that it is right, if possible, that the correct figure should be arrived at, not a figure which is either too high or too low. That is perfectly right, but it is a generalisation which does not advance any argument. I did not hear any concrete reason to suggest that £400 is too high and that £350 is the right figure.
The hon. Gentleman's judgment may be, and probably is, better than mine. I can go only by what I know of my own constituency, which is in south-east London and is a marginal constituency which contains both working class and middle class areas. A very great number of my constituents are in the income bracket to which the hon. Gentleman referred—£2,500 a year and upwards towards £3,500 and £4,000. Many of them are professional people with families of young children. From my own personal knowledge and experience, many of them suffer considerable hardship, because they have to live in London as near to the centre as they can, often because of the nature of their work, because they are teachers, doctors, lawyers, and such people.
Under the present system they are forced to occupy accommodation at rents higher than those which they can reasonably afford to pay and higher than those which they ought to pay if there were equality between supply and demand. I am confident that it was for this very reason, to a large degree, that so many of them voted for me at the General Election rather than for the perpetuation of a rent system which continued decontrol and left the free market where it stood. They realised—they told me so—that it is only by regulation, not only of the lower rented properties but of the type of property which they were occupying, that fair rents could be introduced.
I am confident that the Government's judgment as to the figure for London is


right. It is based on facts which are identical with my own experience. I have heard nothing from hon. Members opposite to suggest that the figure which the Government have inserted in the Bill is wrong.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) said, very honestly, that he can speak only from his own experience in his constituency. I accept that. That can be the only explanation of his complete misunderstanding of the position in the rest of the country and his belief that there is no difference between the two sides of the House about the limit which should apply in the rest of the country.
I feel inclined to support the proposition that we should disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, though for a very different reason from that which is motivating the Government. My reason is that I believe that the Lords have not gone nearly far enough in this Amendment.
Their Lordships have acted courageously in lifting a corner of this blanket control which the Socialists want to impose for control's sake. Unfortunately, they have not lifted it sufficiently. If we consider the debates which took place in another place we see that the proposer and supporters of the Amendment confirm what I am saying, but for some reason their courage failed them at the last moment. Lest the Minister be alarmed about my attitude, I hasten to add that I have decided not to support them in this proposition because I feel that the right hon. Gentleman might be embarrassed, since I do not believe that he intends to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment because it might jeopardise his Bill. I am, therefore, thankful for small mercies.
I suggest that we consider the implications of the Bill in the rest of the country, outside London and the big cities, because obviously hon. Gentlemen opposite have no idea of what is happening elsewhere. [Interruption.] I am a Scottish hon. Member and I know only too well what is happening north of the Border. We argued in Committee—and their Lordships argued this—that the proposed figures were far too high. I will not follow my hon. Friend the Member for

Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in his flights into higher mathematics, but I recall that we did one exercise in mathematics in the Scottish Committee when the Under-Secretary suggested that for Scotland the appropriate figure to bring rent control to what it was before 1957 would be £125. That figure was mentioned in another place, too, but the noble Lord who referred to it evidently decided not to press that figure but to accept a compromise sum. I suggest that for Scotland £150 is a more than generous amount.
We need to look at this whole matter again. The subject has been argued at considerable length and it was disclosed by the Scottish Office that the number of houses which would be unaffected by the Bill, had the figure of £200 been used, would be 500 or 15 per county. In other words, it would consist of the stately mansions and baronial castles of Scotland. If the Amendment is accepted—and I recall that the Scottish Office has not been able to help me with the figures—it will, to the best of my calculations, relieve another 500 houses. So, instead of the figure being 15 per county relieved, it will be about 30.
Hon. Members who represent London constituencies may not know that the counties of Scotland are very large places. It would appear to me that there is a distinct possibility of the owner of a castle or stately mansion in upper Deeside or upper Donside, with wonderful grouse-shooting and magnificent salmon fishing, quarrelling with his tenant. If £150 to £200 is the present rateable value, a shooting or fishing tenant—perhaps someone from London—may quarrel with his landlord, the owner of the baronial house with all the amenities that some of them offer, and may invoke the protection of this Bill.
Until we bring some sense into the Bill we may well have the extraordinary situation of some wealthy man from London who, having taken to shooting in one of these baronial castles, appeals to the appropriate rent officer in Aberdeen—and a retired civil servant or trade union official will have to go to the baronial estate perhaps 60 to 70 miles away to try to sort things out.

Mr. Cole: And who does not fish, anyway.

Mr. Hendry: Probably not.
Let us look further, over the mountains, at the County of Inverness, which includes many houses of the type I have described and which extends to the Isle of Skye and the Outer Hebrides. Here we will have the extraordinary situation of a magnificent castle, in the Outer Hebrides, with wonderful sporting amenities, being subject to a similar quarrel between the landlord and his millionaire tenant from London about the rent.
Consider what would happen in this event. Imagine a retired trade union official from Inverness, or probably Glasgow, having to make the two- or three-day journey to the Outer Island to settle a dispute between two millionaires. Then he has the two- or three-day journey back. Considering these possibilities, the Bill is beyond the limits of commonsense.
Hon. Members who represent large cities and centres of population agree that there is good reason for the Bill. But to speak about an upper limit of £200, or even of £150, for the remote parts of the Highlands is absolute nonsense, and the Under-Secretary knows that full well. As I say, I felt inclined to disagree with the Lords in the Amendment because they have not gone far enough, but I am prepared to assist the Government on this occasion so that they can get their Bill. Also, as I pointed out, I am thankful for small mercies and suggest that we agree with the Lords in the Amendment.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I will not attempt to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) into the millionaire paradise north of the Border. I wish to concentrate my remarks to those areas where the Bill can, if it is a good Measure, have a really important and useful effect.
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), whose constituency is next door to mine, expressed some very real fears which have existed in the minds of many people in London about the situation which exists at a certain end of the rented property market. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I have always felt that something should be done to protect those individuals.
The Clause and Amendment concern where we set our sights in giving this protection. The Government have suggested £400, which I believe is too high. I say

that because that sum throws the protection net over people who do not need it. If the Government's intention is to produce legislation which will ensure a measure of security of tenure, together with a fair rent for those in real need, it is essential that the Bill should be aimed at those people.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) suggested that the Minister had already stated that if he felt it unnecessary he would not go to the figure of £400, but that is a pious hope. Let us assume that the Minister does go to that figure. As has been pointed out, In the furnished market it would cover flats of £1,200 a year. It would take in people who are well able to look after themselves and, because it would do that, it would automatically place at a disadvantage those who cannot look after themselves. It would set up complicated machinery—rent officer, tribunals, courts; and we will be discussing those matters later—for a limited capacity. It must be wrong that the queue of people who are in need of this legislation should have to stand in that queue with people who do not need it.
It may be argued that the Amendment seeking to reduce the figure to £350 represents only a small difference, but it is a step in the right direction. I say that because if the Bill is passed containing the figure of £400 the effects will be twofold. The first is the one I have mentioned—a clogging of the machinery which is supposed to protect those in real need—and the second, much more important, is that it will destroy the private landlord. We will have the situation developing in London and other big cities where the only people who can live in them are either council tenants or the very rich.
5.30 p.m.
It was stated quite unequivocally in the Milner Holland Report that the rôle of the private landlord was enormous, or, at least, important. He is an essential part of the equation if we are to conquer the chronic housing trouble in our big cities. Yet the Bill will introduce a system of legislation whereunder the private landlord controlling dwellings in London of rateable value up to £400 will face appeals to rent tribunals which, in many cases, through no particular malice on their part but merely because


there is no clearly defined procedure in the Bill, will be fixing rents which are uneconomic to the landlord.
The Minister may feel that uneconomic to the landlord is synonymous with fair. It is not. We shall have a situation in which private landlords will say, "I am not going on with this; I shall get out"—I have had many letters from constituents pointing this out—and they will try to sell. I remind the House that the private landlord is not necessarily the big property developer. It is often the quite small property owner who has, say, two houses or flats or, perhaps, the lady who has one or two flats in her own house which she lets.
The private landlord will attempt to sell but will not be able to do so. No doubt, if the procedure at present being followed is continued, the local authorities will be encouraged to buy the property for their own use.

Mr. Crossman: indicated assent.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The Minister nods his assent, and we know very well that the right hon. Gentleman's intention is to cast the local authority net as widely as possible. I shall not argue that now, but let us assume that there is a situation of credit restriction such as we have now and the local authorities are not in a financial position to buy the large number of houses appearing on the market. The owners will not be able to sell, and the rents will be fixed at a level so low as to be no longer economic, presumably, at a level comparable to the rents being paid by local authority tenants which are already heavily subsidised out of the rates. Thus, those houses and flats will once again turn into slums. The rented property in our big cities will gradually deteriorate, and we shall need something like the 1957 Rent Act to get them up to standard again.
I beg the Minister, even at this late hour, to realise that the net he is casting is too wide. The intentions may be excellent, but, because of the sweeping powers which he has taken in this Bill, he will not solve the housing problem but will, in fact, aggravate it.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I support the view that this Amendment from the other place is a delaying tactic and nothing more, and it is supported with alacrity by hon.

Members opposite who do not want to see the Bill go through. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) said, "We must debate something until we are satisfied, and that is all we are doing it for". I remind him—perhaps he was not there—of what happened during the Committee stage of the Protection from Eviction Bill, which my right hon. Friend had said we should get through in one evening. On that occasion, we had the spectacle, from 3.30 in the afternoon onwards, of six hon. Members opposite rising to speak, one after the other, and then rising again one after the other, so that hon. Members on this side said practically nothing. By 2 o'clock in the morning we had got through half the Bill, and then the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) rose to say, in a very sweet and reasonable way, that he thought that the time had come to move to report Progress, which meant that we should have another sitting, because he and his hon. and right hon. Friends were very tired.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have your guidance? Have we your leave, on the Lords Amendments to this Bill, to conduct a further debate on the procedure on the Prevention from Eviction Act? I should like to know, because I should have a number of contributions to make on that subject myself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): No. We must limit ourselves to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Tuck: I was merely warning the House against a repetition of what occurred on that occasion. My right hon. Friend replied that we should get the Bill through by 8 o'clock in the morning, whereupon the other side got it through in three quarters of an hour.

Mr. Cole: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to me. For his information, I was present during the whole of the proceedings on that Measure. Second, we are not supporting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Cole: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are not supporting the Lords Amendment, which was actually initiated—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Watford to speak to the Amendment.

Mr. Tuck: I content myself with warning the House against these innocent debaters.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As at previous stages of the Bill, I must, in accordance with our custom, declare a possible interest in its subject matter as a member of the board of a company owning property.
The Parliamentary Secretary was his agreeable self in moving that we disagree with the Lords Amendment, but he was somewhat less communicative than usual. It will be necessary, before we part with the Amendment, whichever way we do, to elicit from the Government—I hope that it will be the Minister himself who will reply—

Mr. Crossman: indicated assent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —certain further facts which are material to this matter. However, before I come to that, I must say a few words about three extraordinary speeches which we have had during the debate. First, there was the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) who got himself into a tremendous tizzy about the wickedness of another place, apparently, in debating this issue at all. The hon. Member seemed to think—it is an interesting reflection of Liberal philosophy—that, because a matter was so important that it had rightly been discussed in this House during the various stages of the Bill, the other place, for some reason, should be excluded altogether from even discussing it, never mind putting forward Amendments. One must make allowances for a Liberal Chief Whip who has recently lost 10 per cent. of his strength and not, perhaps, take him too seriously, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman surpassed even his usual high standards of naivety when he said, "It is all right because the Minister has actually said that, if he thinks it necessary to bring the figure down, he will do so".
We know this Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) reminded us, we know that, for perfectly sincere reasons of policy, with which we profoundly disagree, this is the last Minister to wish to

give those who want to provide accommodation privately to let a chance to do so, and it is extremely improbable that he would exercise these powers in order to reduce the scope of the Bill. I shall not at this stage open up all the entertaining aspects of his so-called housing plan—I should be ruled out of order were I to attempt it—but it is the fact that a Minister who takes that view of the private landlord is extremely unlikely to exercise the powers in which the hon. Member for Orpington has such pathetic faith.
I come now to the speeches of the hon. Members for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck). In any competition about who was doing most to hold up a Bill, I should give a prize to an hon. Member who, during the debate on it, discussed the provisions of a Measure which has been on the Statute Book for the best part of a year. But that is a purely personal view. I remind the hon. Member for Salford, East, as I reminded him, apparently fruitlessly, last Thursday, that the overwhelming majority of the Amendments now coming before us from another place were put in at the initiative of the Government. Speaking from memory, I think that only about half a dozen were Opposition Amendments, and the remainder of these 50 or so were Government Amendments. I say at once that some of those Amendments were put in to meet requests made from this side of the House, but some of them were made to deal with one or other of the many patent defects of this singularly ill-drafted Measure, and all of these, except a half dozen or so, were put in on the initiative of the Government.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will express instead some gratitude to another place for enabling him to make substantial improvements to the Bill which, unless he had gone back from our Report stage and asked leave to recommit the Bill, he would not have been able to do had not another place been available in which he could do it. Therefore, it comes ill from hon. Members opposite to take the line that the Lords in amending the Bill mainly on the initiative of the Government were doing so for some improper motive connected with delay.
I mentioned that it seemed to me that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave us a very limited indication of the


Government's reasons for rejecting this proposal. One would have thought that if he were asking the House to reject Amendments which come much nearer to the Government's point of view than any of the Amendments discussed at earlier stages of the Bill he would have told us how many houses he thought would be affected. But he did not tell us. I hope that he will give us some indication of the number of houses, first of all, in London, and, secondly, in the rest of the country which would be affected if these Lords Amendments were accepted. We were given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in the Committee stage fairly precise estimates of the number of houses affected by the Bill in its then form. If those figures could be given to as on the basis of rateable values of £400 and £200, then it should be equally possible to give us at any rate approximate figures to show the difference from those which would result from adopting the rateable values embodied in the Lords Amendments.
It is the more surprising that that was not done when it appears that the Government have very precise figures in their minds as to many of the effects of the Bill. On 3rd July last, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), told a gathering at Hounslow that the effect of the Bill would be to reduce the rents of 300,000 houses in the London area. I do not know how he got that figure and knew what these independent authorities, the rent officers and the rent assessment committees, would do, but at any rate he gave those figures not off the cuff but in a document carefully described as a news release issued by the Labour Party Press and Publicity Department.
I should be out of order if I probed how the figure was reached, but if such a precise figure can be forecast as to the results of decisions in hundreds of thousands of individual cases dealt with by rent officers and rent assessment committees, surely we can be given the very much simpler figure of how many houses would be taken out of control if the Lords Amendment were accepted. Unless the Minister can do that, it will seem that he is somewhat pig-headedly sticking to the figures because he put them originally in the Bill and is not

applying his mind to the practical arguments which have been adduced.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary used a rather remarkable phrase when he said that the Lords Amendment embodied what he called a middle kingdom and that he rejected the middle kingdom because, taking an example from his own part of the world, St. Helens and Runcorn would be on one side and Widnes on the other of a line which would create anomalies. But as the Bill stands there is a much sharper anomaly on the edges of Greater London. If one happens to be just beyond the Greater London area, there is a difference of £200 in rateable value in houses which would be within the scope of the Bill. The anomaly, such as he sees it, on the verges of the Merseyside area would be very much smaller. There would be a disparity under these proposals of £50 a year.
5.45 p.m.
I do not think that it lies in the mouth of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to argue that such anomalies defeat the concept of a middle band when his own Measure provides for very much bigger anomalies, sharper and more acute, on the edges of outer London. Looking at it from the point of view of housing policy, is it reasonable to say that the same limit must apply in Birmingham as in Merioneth or in Manchester as in Inverness? Surely, once one has accepted, as the Minister accepts by putting in a different figure for London, that one ought to have some flexibility in the coverage of the figure there is as big a difference to bridge between Birmingham and Merioneth and Manchester and Inverness as there is between London and the rest of the country. It seems to me that the suggestion made in another place of taking the Minister's figure of £200 and continuing to apply it in the major conurbations is a practical and sensible one, and I think that the House will agree that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not direct any effective argument against it.
Now we come to London. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) directed a rather interesting argument. He accepted that the London figures would affect some people who were quite comfortably off, but he said that it did not matter and that it was


really quite a good thing. That would be an argument which would be tenable—though I personally would reject it—if there was no upward limit in the Bill at all, if the Bill applied universally, but it does not. The Minister accepts, as another place accepted, and as we all accepted, that there should be a figure beyond which control should not operate in a particular area. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West does not bite on this issue, which is whether we have the right figure in the Bill.
We come, therefore, in respect of London, to the very clear and emphatic statement in the Report of the Milner Holland Committee:
We are satisfied on the evidence before us that there is plently of good accommodation for rent in London at rentals of £400–£500 per annum and above".
When one is deciding that one is going to draw a line above which it is not necessary to have control and regulation, it is surely reasonable to draw that line at or close to the point at which there is a good supply of accommodation, because where there is an adequate supply to meet the demand the working of the market will itself produce an equitable price and rent. It is shortage which is the cause of excessive rents, and in the absence of shortage I do not see why control or regulation should be deemed to be necessary.
One has, as the Minister rightly reminded us, to seek to relate the figures in the Milner Holland Report, which are rental figures, to rateable values, which are the criterion used in the Bill. There was some discussion this afternoon, and considerable discussion, apparently, in another place, as to how in London one could relate the two, discussion as to what was the correct multiplier. The dashing young Parliamentary Secretary who represents the Minister in another place directed a good deal of his considerable dialectical ability to demonstrating to his own complete satisfaction that the multiplier that I had suggested in the course of our own discussions was wrong and excessive. He produced another, and I think that for the purposes of this Amendment one can accept it and

apply it to the Amendment. He said that the multiplier should be 1¼ to 1½.
If we apply that to the proposal in this Amendment of £350 a year, that results, in the unlikely event of my mathematics being right, in a total of £437 10s. for the lower figure of 1¼, and on the higher figure—on which I am rather more confident—it would work out at £525. Surely that is generous in the light of the Milner Holland figures of £400 to £500, giving a somewhat higher bracket. I suggest that the figure of £350 accepts the principle of the Milner Holland figures, that it is generous and proper and that it would be wrong to go beyond it.
More than once in this debate, it has been argued that it really does not matter if this figure is put too high—that it is better to be sure and make it high. There are powerful objections to that view. First, there is the question of adding unnecessary pressure to the administrative machine to deal with these matters. The Minister is engaged in setting up a most elaborate machine of rent officers and rent assessment committees in the London area, to which, quite rightly, he is giving priority. But I think that he recognises as well as anyone that this is an expensive and elaborate apparatus which he thinks necessary, no doubt in view of the heavy volume of business with which it is likely to have to deal. In that situation we should confine the system of rent control and regulation to the level where it is needed, where there is shortage.
Secondly, there is the question of fairness. If there is an open market, an adequate supply of premises, it is not the business or the duty of the State to intervene between landlord and tenant. If there is a fair market with an adequate supply, landlord and tenant can strike a fair bargain. There is not the same justification of Government interference that shortage provides.
Thirdly, there is the effect on the supply of accommodation. It is clear that this Bill, whatever its effects—and some will undoubtedly be beneficial—if it is carried to the width of scope and the height of level of rateable value which the Government propose, will further diminish the supply of privately provided accommodation to let. It may be that it must be accepted as the lesser of two


evils in the lower areas of rateable value and in the great cities, but that is in itself a powerful argument against applying it any higher than is necessary and thus covering places where there is no real shortage.
We do not want to see the local authorities being the sole providers of rented accommodation. I know the Minister's view. He gives priority to the local authorities in the provision of rented accommodation. He accepts, subject to some restraint, the position of the home owner and does not want to see further accommodation provided by private landlords. From that point of view the Bill is consistent with his views, although that is not one of the reasons that has been adduced for the fixing of these figures in the Bill. However, it is a serious objection from our point of view to fixing the figure so high.
It means that the private landlord who comes into possession will be tempted to sell either for owner occupation or to convert and that, except for luxury flats high above the rateable value in London, there will be no inducement to developers to provide accommodation to let. What those concerned in those matters want to see is an overall increase in the output of housing. It seems a pity to take any step which must have the effect of diminishing one, and not the least important, source of supply of rented accommodation.
To those who say that it does not matter if the figure is fixed too high, I say that it matters a great deal. It will over-strain the machine, will be unfair as between man and man and will diminish the supply of houses. If the Minister will not take action and realise that we have gone a long way to meet him and does not agree to think again about this, we shall have to support the other place in the Lobby.

Mr. Crossman: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) mentioned that our rejection of this Amendment reflects our philosophy about the Bill. Although this is a minor Amendment, I agree that it does reveal a genuine difference between the two sides. The difference can be summed up quite simply. I have done it before but one sometimes has to be guilty perhaps of tedious repetition at

this stage of a Measure. The difference is between those who feel that it is their duty wherever possible to tip the thing a little further in favour of the landlord and those of us who feel that the pendulum up to now has swung a very long way in the opposite direction and that the tenant must now receive the primary consideration.
I have certainly considered the position of the landlord, but by and large every Amendment moved by the party opposite, which is primarily landlord-minded, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly showed, shows that basically right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite consider it their duty to strengthen the position of the private landlord.
It is my considered view that, when the Bill comes into operation, those landlords who want to improve their properties and are prepared to do repairs will, for the first time, if they carry out such work, have a chance of getting a fair rent. But I must say that, having done that for the landlord, which was our prime duty to them, we had to make absolutely sure that we were giving the tenant in marginally difficult cases the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, one of the things we had to consider was the level of rateable value at which to set control. I do not deny that it will be an inconvenience to private landlords who are used to thinking of control as something which affects only a certain area of property but which is now extended to both furnished and unfurnished dwellings up the scale. I am not shocked by this, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
The middle class have a right to security in their homes. I have no reason to believe that the exploitation of the tenant, or his unfair treatment, is exclusively at the lowest possible level. I believe that at a higher level there are great pressures. After all, exploitation occurs where there is artificial scarcity of accommodation. From my knowledge of middle-class people in London I know that many are paying far more in rent than they can afford and are living beyond their means and under great difficulty.
I cannot see why the Conservative Party should spend hours trying to deny to this group of people the protection of


this Bill. Why should not the middle class be allowed to have their rents considered in order to see whether or not they are fair? These people frequently find it difficult to get rented accommodation and often have to pay £150 or £200 more than they can comfortably afford because they have to have rented accommodation. Why should they not have the same rights as the working-class people?
It is indeed paradoxical that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) should plead, in effect, "We say that this procedure of rent regulation should be available to working-class people but we should deny it to the middle class. We must not let them clog the wheels. We must keep them out. We are concerned with natural justice. We see the overwhelming need of the working class to get to these tribunals and therefore the middle class should not be allowed in."
6.0 p.m.
I listened with great attention to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I put it to him that there is no firm knowledge that there are not cases of exploitation of scarcity by landlords at quite high levels of rent. I happen to live in a rented house in London and I have not heard that people would not like security of tenure if they could get it.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is perfectly true and I said what the right hon. Gentleman has quoted. But I leave it to the Labour Party to bring class into this. There was no question in any of my remarks of the middle class or the working class or anybody else. What I was saying was that those in real need should be protected and not those who could look after themselves.

Mr. Crossman: That is exactly the point. The hon. Gentleman has made a very curious assumption. It is the assumption that the need for security of tenure is limited to the poor. That is what he means by "actual need". He thinks that the person paying several hundred pounds a year in rent has no need of security. He correlates need for security with an income level. The point I am making is that if the hon. Gentleman studies the conditions of the middle class in his constituency a little, he will find that many

need security and would not be at all unwilling to have the chance of going to the rent officer.
Having made it his first argument to say that it was those people in need who wanted security most, he said that his real concern was with the landlords and that if control were extended upwards and tenants of middle-class properties could go to rent assessment committees to get a fair rent, rents would come down. He asked where the poor landlords would then be. The hon. Gentleman argues that the landlords would not be making any money at the lower level and that at the one level where they are luxuriating, this prosperous level, they would be clipped. We thus have the strange situation of the Conservative Party determined to prevent a fair and equal share of security of tenure from being allocated irrespective of class. The Government are trying to give security of tenure irrespective of class.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Why the limit, then?

Mr. Crossman: I will be perfectly candid about that. If the hon. Gentleman goes back to the Protection from Eviction Act, in which we fixed a limit in a rough and ready way, because we used the limit of the county court, he will find the reason for the limit. However, if he is prepared to move an Amendment to provide that there shall be no limit, I will very seriously consider it. Is that what he is saying? I do not think that he is.
What I am saying is that we have decided to extend the limit of rateable value upwards because we want to discover whether there are not scarcities, and exploitations of scarcities, even in blocks of flats where people are paying quite large rents. Hon. Members opposite are so anxious about this matter because they know that if some of those tenants go to the rent assessment committees, rents will come down. That is what they are alarmed about. That is what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said. He said that the landlords would not be able to keep up the houses, because rents would be reduced as a result of appeals to the committees. Indeed, that was his central argument.
There are two possibilities: either rents are too high and there is exploitation of scarcity, in which case they ought


to be reduced and it is very unreasonable to leave out these people. Or they are not too high, in which case they will not be reduced by the rent assessment committees. Landlords will be able to appeal to the committees, as I have no doubt they will, and will see whether they can get their rents approved.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: What will that get?

Mr. Crossman: What it will get is confidence and stability in that section of the market. We are concerned to establish cases and precedents, and I have no doubt that this issue will be settled ii the first two or three months of the working of the London rent assessment committees, because I have no doubt that landlords will rapidly wish to test cases and will quite properly do so. The hon. Gentleman and I will soon discover who is right and who wrong.
I am sure that in some cases we shall find that landlords will be able to show their rents are fair, while in others we shall be able to discover that they are not fair. What baffles me is why we should spend hour after hour on an attempt by the Tory Party to prevent that process from taking place. Once that has been done, and once decisions have been made, this area of the market will quickly react and will know quite well what the decisions are, will be sensible about them. And we shall have gained something from that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a very interesting argument, but does it follow from it that the right hon. Gentleman is rejecting the finding, on evidence, of the Milner Holland Committee, which was that in London there was plenty of good accommodation at rentals of £400 to £500 a year and therefore a market which would find its own level in the presence of an adequate supply?

Mr. Crossman: I am not rejecting what the Milner Holland Committee said. It said that there was plenty of this accommodation in London. Again we return to this recognition that if there is a statement that there is plenty of accommodation in a huge area like London, one generalises into saying that there will therefore be no exploitation anywhere in London. There may be

plenty of accommodation globally in London and yet acute scarcities in different parts of London. There may be plenty globally in the whole country but a shortage in certain areas. In that sentence the Milner Holland Committee made that generalisation and from our evidence I think that it was a remark which, on reflection, some members of the committee might have qualified.
I do not want to spend more time on this issue, because we have ventilated it thoroughly, but I ought to reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). He talked of the blanket of control which he wanted to strip off. It was a very misleading simile. What we have is a pillow of security and not a blanket of control, and in my view even the middle class would like a pillow of security.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: It will be smothered by it.

Mr. Crossman: The tenants paying these higher rentals will not feel smothered by the chance to appeal against their rents if their rents are too high, and that is the only issue which we have to discuss.
Finally, I come to the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. He is not often like this, but he went a little far in calculated discourtesy when he said that he knew that I was the kind of Minister who, having given an assurance, would not keep it for a moment. I therefore have to repeat that of course we have framed the Bill throughout for the maximum flexibility. We have given ourselves power to reduce the rateable value levels wherever we find them too high. We would not dream of keeping them at levels where there was clearly no advantage in doing so, where there was clearly an open market.
The right hon. Gentleman may not believe me now, but there will not be many weeks before he will be able to see whether what I have said is true, because by next spring we shall know which of us is right and which wrong about London. Why not give us the chance to find out at the high levels what the situation really is and to give the right to a fair rent and security of tenure irrespective of class?

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

Division No. 271.]
AYES
[6.9 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Owen, Will


Albu, Austen
Harper, Joseph
Padley, Walter


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Alldritt, Walter
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Palmer, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hattersley, Roy
Pargiter, G. A.


Armstrong, Ernest
Hazell, Bert
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Parker, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pentland, Norman


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Perry, Ernest G.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hooson, H. E.
Popplewell, Ernest


Binns, John
Horner, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Boardman, H.
Howie, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, Edward


Boyden, James
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Rees, Merlyn


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Richard, Ivor


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Buchanan, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rose, Paul B.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Rowland, Christopher


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Leadbitter, Ted
Skeffington, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Snow, Julian


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Solomons, Henry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lubbock, Eric
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Delargy, Hugh
McBride, Neil
Stones, William


Dell, Edmund
McCann, J.
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dempsey, James
MacColl, James
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
MacDermot, Niall
Swain, Thomas


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Swingler, Stephen


Driberg, Tom
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Symonds, J. B.


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
MacMillan, Malcolm
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dunnett, Jack
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tinn, James


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


English, Michael
Manuel, Archie
Tuck, Raphael


Ennals, David
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Ensor, David
Mason, Roy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Maxwell, Robert
Wallace, George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mayhew, Christopher
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Robert
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Floud, Bernard
Millan, Bruce
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foley, Maurice
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitlock, William


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Molloy, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Monslow, Walter
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ford, Ben
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Garrett, W. E.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Murray, Albert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Hale, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian
Zilliacus, K.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. George Rogers and




Mr. Charles Grey.

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 182.

NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Atkins, Humphrey
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Awdry, Daniel
Grieve, Percy
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Balniel, Lord
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Onslow, Cranley


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bell, Ronald
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Peel, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Percival, Ian


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Black, Sir Cyril
Hay, John
Pitt, Dame Edith


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Box, Donald
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hendry, Forbes
Pym, Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buck, Antony
Hordern, Peter
Roots, William


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Royle, Anthony


Buxton, Ronald
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Carlisle, Mark
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shepherd, William


Chataway, Christopher
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sinclair, Sir George


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kilfedder, James A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Studholme, Sir Henry


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lagden, Godfrey
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Crawley, Aidan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Teeling, Sir William


Crowder, F. P.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Curran, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longbottom, Charles
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveys, W. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Walder, David (High Peak)


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Eyre, Reginald
Maitland, Sir John
Wall, Patrick


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Fisher, Nigel
Mathew, Robert
Ward, Dame Irene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Maude, Angus
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Mawby, Ray
Webster, David


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, William


Gammans, Lady
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Mitchell, David
Wolrige-Gordon Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Monro, Hector



Glyn, Sir Richard
More, Jasper
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. Martin McLaren and


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. R. W. Elliott.

Clause 6.—(VARIATION, BEFORE REGISTRATION, OF RENT RECOVERABLE DURING STATUTORY PERIODS.)

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 6, line 15, leave out "an improvement" and insert "a".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It would be convenient if we could discuss at the same time Lords Amendments No. 3—page 6, line 18, to leave

out first "or"—No. 4—page 6, line 19, after "1959" insert:
or section 15 of the Airports Authority Act 1965"—
No. 14—page 11, line 15, after "1959" insert:
or section 15 of the Airports Authority Act 1965"—
No. 47—page 45, line 19, at end insert:
7A.—(1) In section 5(3) of the Rent Act 1957 after the words 'Housing Act 1949' there shall be inserted the words 'or a grant has been made in respect of the improvement


under section 15 of the Airports Authority Act 1965'.
(2) In section 5(4) of the Rent Act 1957 after the words 'section 20' there shall be inserted the words 'or under the said section 15'.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection, if the House has no objection.

Mr. MacColl: I was rather upset and perturbed by the violent attack made on me by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) when he said that I was obstinate and pig-headed. I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment", which shows that I am prepared to consider the Lords Amendments dispassionately on their merits and not to take an obstinate attitude towards them.
These Amendments deal with the bringing into operation of the Airports Authority Act, 1965, under which grants can be made towards the cost of soundproofing dwellings. Their general effect is to treat improvements made for soundproofing which are in receipt of grant in the same way as improvements made in receipt of standard grant or general improvement grant under the Housing Act or improvements made under the Clean Air Act. The general effect of them is that the tenant will not have the right to object to an improvement made under Clause 6 on the ground that it is unreasonable because—and this applies in the other cases which I have mentioned—if it is in receipt of grant there is a presumption that it is reasonable. The other point is that the 12½ per cent. increase of rent which can be charged for the cost of the improvement is a net charge after deduction of the grant. That covers the first two groups of Amendments.
Amendment No. 47 applies the Airports Authority Act to old controlled houses whereas the other Amendments deal with the problems of regulated houses. But there are some houses in the area of London Airport still subject to the old control. I hope that the House will feel that these are reasonable Amendments which should be accepted.

Mr. James Allason: As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, the effect of these Amendments is that the tenant will have no right of appeal should an improvement be forcibly made to his house in consequence of

which he has to pay in increased rent up to 12½ per cent. of the cost of the repairs to the landlord. We have just heard from the Minister how his heart is always on the side of the tenant.

Mr. MacColl: No.

Mr. Allason: In this case, it seems that he has not the interests of the tenant at heart at all.
The right of appeal is the law in the case of improvements except under the Clean Air Act when the improvement has to be made to comply with the law. Therefore, it is sensible that there should not be in that case any appeal against the imposition of improvements. But in other cases there is the right of appeal. In the case of an improvement grant, the custom is that the agreement of the tenant is required by the local authority before it will entertain an application for an improvement grant. This is sensible because, after all, there is a tenancy agreement which governs the tenancy and it cannot be revoked or changed unilaterally by the landlord by imposing an improvement if the tenant does not want it. There should be a right of appeal in this cases under the Airports Authority Act.
It was said in another place that because the scheme will be made by the Minister it will be economic and reasonable and that the tenant should not object to it. But there might well be cases in which the tenant would wish to object. He might think that the scheme as applied to his house was excessive. The scheme cannot go into detail as a local authority goes into detail in the case of an improvement grant. The Minister's scheme would be very general. It cannot be said that it is bound to be extremely economical.
It would be improper if a tenant who was stone deaf were forced to have his house soundproofed against his will and to pay a higher rent in consequence solely because the landlord decided that he would like to have it soundproofed as he wanted the higher rent and the house improved. The very least that we should have is an assurance that when the Minister makes his scheme he will include in it the right of a tenant to appeal. If not, I think that these Amendments should not be accepted.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I should like to ask about the position of tenants whose houses are to be soundproofed. Not very many people in my constituency will be affected, because we are just on the fringe of the area, but we are always hopeful that the area will be extended so that a large number of my constituents might be affected. What will be the position?
As I understand it, a grant will be made to the landlord for soundproofing houses against aircraft noise. Suppose that the landlord does much more than is necessary to keep the rooms reasonably quiet and puts in expensive ventilators, double glazing, and so on. Will the tenant have no right of appeal against the landlord's demand for an increased rent? If so, that seems to me unreasonable. We all know from building costs that one can soundproof a room, to some degree, fairly inexpensively, but to do it properly or completely all sorts of expensive gadgets like ventilators are required. Therefore, the landlord could spend a lot of money on doing the work, far more than he would get under the grant.
I should therefore like to be absolutely clear about the position of the tenant and to ask why he should not have the right of appeal against an excessive charge which a landlord might make for soundproofing the rooms of his house.

Mr. MacColl: The procedure for dealing with the grant is laid down in the Airport Authority Act and is not something which I want to discuss here. However, on the general principle of the desirability of these grants, my right hon. Friend feels that it is very desirable that protection should be given from this frightful nuisance of noise.
I could not understand the view of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that we must stop fumes but not stop injury from sound. I should have thought that in the modern world the one was as frightful as the other.
The scheme has to be approved to qualify for grant. If there is a grant, it seems to me to be highly unlikely that a landlord would want to spend an excessive amount of money on doing this, because he does not get the benefit. The persons who get the benefit are the unfortunate people living in the house.

Even if some of them are stone deaf, they are not all likely to be stone deaf.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with my point about the deaf tenant?

Mr. MacColl: I dealt with it. I said that they would not all be deaf.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a small but difficult point here. I grant that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has on his side what is, I believe, the normal practice in a number of analogous schemes. On the other hand, it would reassure some of my hon. Friends if it were clear that there would at least be consultation with the tenants before this work was done.
There are really two points. First, a tenant might, for some reason of his own, not wish to have the work done; there would be interference with his comfort while it was being done. Secondly, he might not wish to pay the additional rent which would be involved.
I regard the airports grants scheme as a sensible one and one which helps to meet a real problem. It is quite right that the Government should seek to use another place to get some reference to that Act into the Bill; it would be incomplete without it. I would hope, however, that we could let the matter go if it were possible for an indication to be given that some form of consultation with tenants would be provided for, perhaps in the drafting of the scheme by the Minister of Aviation.
My hon. Friends have made a point which should not be wholly overlooked. There is merit in this even though it may, perhaps, be showing a concern for the tenant as against the landlord which, in view of his speech on the last Amendment, apparently surprised the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7.—(EFFECT OF REGISTRATION ON RENT RECOVERABLE FOR STATUTORY PERIODS.)

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 6, line 36, leave out from "than" to first "the" in line 37 and insert:
the date on which the rent was registered nor earlier than four weeks before

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to


move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Without the Amendment to Clause 7(b), in the case of a statutory tenancy where an increased rent is registered under the rent-fixing machinery, the landlord, in order to obtain the higher rent, must serve a notice of increase on the tenant giving him four weeks' advance notice of the increase. Where, on the other hand, the rent is decreased under the rent-fixing machinery, the lower rent will come into effect from the date of the application for registration, unless the rent officer or rent assessment committee decides otherwise, as provided in Schedule 3 paragraph 13.
The debate on this Amendment, together with our previous discussions on the matter, might be referred to as the goose-and-gander debate. The phrase was coined, I believe, by either the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) or the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). There was, however, an attempt in Committee on a starred Amendment to press this matter upon the Government. Quite modestly, and, I think, correctly, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government would like to think about the matter. In the impatience of the moment, however—and I do not blame hon. Members for that, because it was a hardworking Committee in which passions rose occasionally—the Opposition forced the Amendment upon the Government.
When the matter was accordingly discussed on Report, nevertheless my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary felt that we should look into the matter again. This Amendment, therefore, from another place, with which I invite the House to agree, is in response to that pledge by the Government that we would look at the matter carefully.
Some of my hon. Friends expressed doubt upon the subject and I should like to put their minds at rest by saying a few words in their support. The period of four weeks' advance notice for increases derives from Section 3(2) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, which provided that, apart from increases to take account of increases in rates, an increase to bring the

rent up to the standard recoverable rent should not take effect until four clear weeks from the date of service of the notice of increase. The intention was to avoid a tenant having to face arrears unexpectedly. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) made this point in Committee.
Under the provisions in the Bill for fixing a fair rent, as provided in Schedule 3, paras 4 to 12, the rent officer in an opposed case is bound to give the tenant at least seven days to make representations against the landlord's application; and if representations are so made, the rent officer must give at least seven days' notice of a meeting with the parties to consider the matter. If the issue is referred to the rent assessment committee, a further opportunity is given for representations to be made. Thus, it can be said to my hon. Friends who have been concerned about the position that if a tenant had to face an increased rent, he would have had a fair period of warning.
The Amendment fulfils the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on Report. It has the same effect as the Amendment which the Opposition moved and lost on a Division in Committee on 12th May. The Amendment provides that where, on registration, an increased rent is fixed for a statutory tenancy, the increase may take effect not earlier than the date of registration or not earlier than four weeks before service of the notice of increase, whichever date is later. The landlord will thus be able to obtain the increase from the date of registration provided that he serves the notice of increase within four weeks of registration. As the tenant is notified of the rent which is registered by the rent office or the rent assessment committee, as the case may be, he will not face any unexpected arrears. If the landlord delays serving the notice of increase, the tenant cannot be made to pay more than four weeks' arrears and any arrears cannot be backdated before the date of registration.
The Government having given adequate time to assess this important point and so met the sauce for the goose and the sauce for the gander—and not the "sauce diable", as the hon. Member for


Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) described it—I think that we have struck a good balance and I invite the House to agree with the Lords in the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for introducing the Amendment and for his explanation of it. It was, in fact, the explanation which I endeavoured to give on the earlier stages of the Bill. I do not know why we had to wait for another place to get such a logical and sensible Amendment. It is so obviously logical that if a reduction took place at once on registration, an increase should take place at once. There is no question about the tenant not having notice of the increase. He would know about it, because he would have been party to the proceedings before the rent officer.
This is, therefore, a fair and proper Amendment to the Bill which should have been made in the very early stages. If it was missed in drafting, it should have been made when we put our Amendment forward in Committee. I am glad that it has come forward now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11.—(POWER TO CONVERT EXISTING CONTROLLED TENANCIES INTO REGULATED TENANCIES.)

Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 7, line 45, at end insert:
except in the case mentioned in subsection () of this section.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 8, line 28, at end insert:
() The provision to be made by an order under this section with respect to an existing controlled tenancy which is one to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 would have applied but for paragraph (c) of section 43(1) of that Act (or would have so applied had it been a tenancy within the meaning of of that Act) shall be that the existing controlled tenancy shall be treated for the purposes of that Act as a tenancy continuing by virtue of section 24 thereof after the expiry of a term of years certain.

Mr. MacColl: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would be agreeable. Lords Amendment No. 6 deals with the special problem of

what are usually known as mixed premises—that is, premises which are occupied partly for business purposes and partly as living quarters. These were included originally in the Rent Acts historically because there was no other way of protecting tenants except through the Rent Acts. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, however, there were provisions for looking after the interests of people in mixed premises which to some extent rival the provisions in the Rent Act.
All through this Bill we have tried to avoid having conflicts of jurisdiction but to keep the Rent Act procedure for cases which are not otherwise dealt with. In Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act there is a code of protection for tenancies of premises which are occupied by tenants for business purposes, and that seems a reasonable protection. So wherever the Bill provides that an existing controlled tenancy may become a regulated tenancy and a statutory tenancy of mixed premises may be affected it is necessary to make provision deeming this statutory tenancy will be a tenancy to which Part II of the 1954 Act applies. So it is to keep the protection of that Act, rather than enter into regulation this has been done. There is an analogous case in Clause 13. I think this is a reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I think this is a thoroughly good Amendment. It is an example of one of the ways in which the Bill has been improved during its course through the two Houses of Parliament. As I understand it, it puts the whole of mixed premises along with business premises now entirely under the control of the 1954 Act rather than having the previous position where those at a lower rateable value were under the protection of the ordinary Rent Acts. If that is so, I think it is a good provision, as I understand it. My only comment would be that it is noticeable that by doing that it now allows the landlord of these premises to obtain possession on the ground of the fact that he wishes to obtain them for the purposes of development. This is what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary opposed when we put the idea forward.

Mr. MacColl: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Minister may speak again only by leave of the House.

Mr. MacColl: If I may have the leave of the House to answer the first point if not the second, the answer is, yes, they are all covered by the 1954 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(SECOND TRANSMISSION ON DEATH.)

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 9, line 20, after "court" insert "or, in Scotland, the sheriff".

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting correction for Clause 13 which, hon. Members may recall, was a Clause inserted on Report and on which there was, quite understandably and properly, a great deal of discussion. I am sorry that the Government at that time did no see that there was this drafting omission. Of course, we took the earliest opportunity to set it right. As the House knows, this is the function of determining the successor in a second transmission under the statutory tenancy when this is disputed, and this is already placed on the sheriff in the case of a first transmission. By Section 12(1,g) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, it would be correct if we made this Amendment as a drafting matter.

Mr. Hendry: I appreciate the point of this Amendment. I think that this House was possibly a little careless in passing the Clause in its present form, but it seems to me that possibly the Amendment has an effect which the Government do not quote appreciate. If this Lords Amendment were not made and these words were not here inserted, it seems to me that it would be the sheriff's court which would be the appropriate court to decide a matter of this kind. It is perfectly clear that if an application of this sort were brought before the sheriff he would deal with it in his ordinary court in accordance with the proper procedure for ordinary cases in the sheriff's court, but if we import these words it seems to me there is grave doubt as to the procedure which applies.
6.45 p.m.
I think it is necessary for us to look at Clause 42 of the Bill. It provides a

special, quick procedure in certain circumstances. It says:
Where an application is made to the sheriff for an order or a determination under this Act it shall be made by way of summary application. …
It goes on to describe what that is. It seems to me that a dispute of this kind is either an application for an order nor an application for a determination and it may be that the appropriate procedure under this Clause is not under Clause 42 but the ordinary procedure in the sheriff's court as though the proposed words were not inserted. It seems to me that the insertion of the words may cause difficulty, whereas the omission would make the matter perfectly clear. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to look at that and assure the House that these difficulties will not in fact arise.

Dr. Mabon: With the permission of the House, I will reply. Certainly we have tried to anticipate a number of possibilities which hon. Members might raise. We suspected, perhaps, that it might be thought that we could proceed under the Clause which the hon. Gentleman, to his merit, has mentioned, but to make absolutely sure, the advice is that we should accept this Amendment and insert these words to make it absolutely, perfectly clear that the procedure should be as suggested in the Lords Amendment. Without it, it is open to doubt. With it, the advice given to the Government is that it is clear, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman says. We do not think it a good thing to leave it open to proceed under the later Clause, because it may be argued as being uncertain. I do not want to enter upon that. All I would say is that Ministers having got this advice that this makes the matter clear, we feel we should follow it, and I hope that the House will agree that this is a better way of proceeding.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14.—(RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSES.)

Lords Amendment No. 9: In page 10, line 10, leave out from "or" to end of line 13 and insert:
his wife or widow or his child (or, if more than one, such of them as may in default of agreement be decided by the court);

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if with


Lords Amendment No. 9 we also considered the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to the Lords Amendment No. 30.

Mr. Graham Page: I wonder if we could have your guidance on this procedural point, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of putting down an Amendment to the Lords Amendment was that if the House disagreed with the Lords Amendment there would be a restoration of all the words in the paragraph (b) as printed. We on this side would have wished to argue that part of those words should be restored, namely, the words "any member of his family" without the restrictions on them of the remaining words of the paragraph. As this is our second line of defence, I would have invited the Government to move to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment and argue it from that point of view, so that we might come in with our second line of defence afterwards. We agree with the Lords Amendment, and only if that is defeated would our Amendment come in. Mr. Speaker, could you give us your guidance as to the order in which we should deal with this?

Mr. Speaker: I can deal only with order. I cannot deal with the substance of the argument. The hon. Member is now suggesting that he is not in favour of the Motion in his name, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. I can guide the House only on procedure. If someone moves, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, and it is carried, then the Amendment will fall.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Speaker, I agree that this normally comes from the Government side, but would it be in order for me to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: I am a little lost at the subtlety of the hon. Member's argument, because his name is to a Motion to disagree with it.

Mr. Graham Page: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is true, but very often we bring Prayers before the House to dis- 
agree with or to pray against an Order with which we agree. The only way in which I anticipate we could argue that part of these words should be restored rather than the whole of them was to put a Motion on the Notice Paper in this form, first to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, and then to substitute. I could scarcely substitute until I had disagreed. If the Lords Amendment were approved by this House there would be no need for the Amendment on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Speaker: We are now coming to argument rather than to order. I have explained order for the moment.

Mr. MacColl: We would not want to ride off on any point of procedure if we could find a way of debating this. Our position is clear. We want the Clause as it was when it left this House, and we are therefore proposing to ask the House to disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can move that Motion.

Mr. MacColl: I shall do so with pleasure. I think that it will stop the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) from moving his Amendment if I do so.

Mr. Speaker: If the House negatives the Motion, That the House doth disagree with the said Amendment, the second Amendment on the Notice Paper cannot be taken.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Speaker, can you help me on that? Until you gave your last Ruling I understood the position to be that you had said that if the House agreed with the Lords in the said Amendment our Amendment would be excluded. I understood you to say a moment ago, however, that if the House disagreed with the Lords Amendment our Amendment would be excluded. Can you help as to how we can get it discussed?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member can talk about his Amendment during the debate on the Question that the House doth disagree. In the event of the Motion that the House doth disagree being negatived, obviously there would be no room for the Amendment. I hope that that is clear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think it might help the House in assessing the position to be reminded about some of the background to the Amendment. The Clause which is now Clause 14 in the Bill started life as an attempt to deal with the problem of a person who goes overseas to seek employment or is posted overseas in the public service and wants to be sure that he can come back to the house that he has let temporarily.
In the final form in which it emerged it goes wider than that, and there is nothing in it about going overseas. It deals with anybody who leaves a house and wishes to come back later to resume residence in it. If he conforms with certain procedures in the way of notices he has the right to obtain possession without having to prove greater hardship.
That is a very broad Clause, and a liberal one from the point of view of the person who leaves. It implies that he has only to show that it is required either for his own occupation as an owner-occupier, or by a member of his family, and the important words about which the dispute has taken place are:
… any member of his family who resided with the owner-occupier when he last occupied the dwelling-house as a residence.
If the owner-occupier returns to the house he can bring back with him anyone whom he has collected during his absence. Such a person can come in under his umbrella and there is no problem about it at all. If his wife or child was with him when he originally occupied the house, and is clearly identifiable as having been with him, no problem arises. The problem arises over the member of the family who has never resided in the house, who comes back, not with the owner-occupier, but under his own steam, and wants to obtain possession without having to prove greater hardship.
In our view that is going much too far, but there is one respect in which the Lords Amendment is rather restrictive because the Members of the other place have confined it to the wife, widow or child, and they have cut out, for example, parents.

A father or mother who might have been living with the owner-occupier, and who might have gone away, and want to come back, cannot obtain posesssion.
One of the reasons for our differing from the Lords is that we think that this should be more general. We want to keep it as general as we can. We say that it should be the whole family. We are not anxious to particularise and say that it will apply only to the wife, widow, or child. We want to keep it general, but if we do it is only reasonable to limit it to the people who were residing with the owner when he last lived in the house.
We do not feel that the Amendment is a satisfactory solution to the problem. We take the view that the right of recovery should be restricted to those who looked to the owner to provide them with shelter when he last lived in the house, and we do not think it should be at large so that anyone who has a family connection with the owner-occupier can come back in his absence and obtain possession.
We have tried very fairly in this Clause to meet a particular problem which we debated at great length both on this Bill and on the Protection from Eviction Bill. We explored all the difficulties. We were all aware of this complication, and eventually, after somewhat prolonged gestation, we managed to produce this Clause which is a good and well-drafted one. It is liberal as regards the people who leave the house and want to return to it, but it is restricted and clearly confined to the people who resided under his protection before he left. To make it wider than that would be going too wide and would shake the whole principle of the Bill, which is that there should be security of tenure for the tenants of a house.
That is the principle which we have adopted in general. We are making an exception to it, but the exception proposed in the Amendment would be very wide because it would mean that a member of the owner-ocupier's family, someone who had never been in this country before, and who had never lived here, could have rights simply by saying that he was part of the family acquired by the owner-occupier while he was out of the house, and put out the people who were then living in the house. It seems reasonable that people who have as complicated a relationship as that


should go to the court and the court ought to be able to deal with it under the greater hardship provisions. Therefore, I think that the right solution is to stick to the words in the Clause as drafted.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first speaker, I hope that it is now clear that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen can address themselves both to the question of disagreeing and to the Amendment. If the House decides to disagree, then an opportunity will be given to vote on the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Your concluding words were that the House would be given, in a certain contingency, an opportunity to vote on the Amendment. I take it that you mean that discussion on the Amendment should take place on the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we can debate the whole question now.

Mr. Cole: Mr. Speaker, may I say how pleased I am to have this first opportunity of addressing you in the Chair? If I say much more I shall be out of order.
I want to ask the Government one or two questions. I gather from you that we can discuss the proposed Lords Amendment and our own proposition together. I believe that I am right in saying that if the tenant who has security of tenure so decides, when the Bill becomes an Act, that security can pass once on his death to his son or to his widow. I think that that is correct according to the ordinary law of tenancy under the various Housing Acts and under the present Bill. But it seems that we are getting to the stage when the rights of the person who is tenant are going, by law, to be more than those appertaining to the person who really owns the house and who was the original occupier.
It is quite extraordinary that, in cold blood, we should be passing a law saying that if a man happens to marry for the second time because his first wife has died six months after he has gone abroad on service, and he lives with that second wife for two or three years and then himself dies, she has no right to go into her late husband's house when she returns home. The same would apply to any

child who reached the age when he could become tenant of that same house and, as already pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary earlier, it would also apply to a mother or father living abroad with the husband.
Although I see the Parliamentary Secretary's point of view in trying to leave the complicated position of sub-paragraph (b) of Clause 14(1), in fairness to everyone, including the tenant, I am bound to say that it would be putting the emphasis far too much on the wrong side to give more powers of security, family rights and the rest of it to the person living in the house as a tenant, possibly under an agreement which is not kept later, as against the equally inalienable rights of the person who owned the house and occupied it originally. I am not talking about distant relatives such as sisters-in-law and cousins, but about an owner's second wife, or possibly his first wife if he was a bachelor when he left the house, and any children who have grown to maturity in the years that they have lived abroad. All those people are prohibited from enjoying what is their fathers' or their husbands' ownerships under security of tenure.
In our joint efforts on both sides to try to make certain of that security, we have gone too far and done something which we shall not be able to alter again afterwards.

Mr. Lubbock: I am afraid that I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), as I have frequently done on previous occasions. I say that it would be much simpler to leave the Bill as it is, whereas the hon. Gentleman says that it would be much simpler to accept one or other of the Amendments.

Mr. Cole: No.

Mr. Lubbock: I put down the word "simpler" as he was speaking.

Mr. Cole: I am much more humble than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I cannot see a solution, but the present situation leaves a lot unsaid.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not agree that that is so at all. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not going to engage in a test in humility with him. Anyone


who reads the Lords Amendment and that of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), will agree that it would be simpler to leave the Bill as it is. It is much easier of interpretation as well, and I will come to that in a moment.
I am not sure which of the two alternative solutions before us the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South was advocating, because there is a great deal of difference between leaving the Lords Amendment as it stands and taking his "wife, widow or child", and the solution of the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston-upon-Thames of taking "any members of his family". If we take the wife, widow and child only, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, we are excluding other members of his immediate family, whatever one may mean by that phrase. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, used the phrase "immediate family" in another place and, if he had thought of it, obviously he would have intended to include the father and mother, about whom the Parliamentary Secretary speaks.
I urge that we disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, because it would be quite unreasonable that, if a man has an elderly parent living abroad with him, he or she should be denied the benefits conferred by Clause 14, which I support wholeheartedly. It is a sign of the Minister's flexible attitude to the Amendments that are being made to the Bill that he has incorporated such a provision, and I heartily welcome it.
Taking the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, if we leave out from "family" to the end of line 13, we are saying that any member of the original owner-occupier's family, irrespective of whether or not he resided with him at the time he was in occupation, can return at the end of five years and regain possession. As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South remarked, there will be a few cases where the owner-occupier has gone abroad, lost his wife and married again. His other example was that of a bachelor who married while abroad and then unfortunately died within the five-year period. In both examples, the widow would be unable to gain possession. Such a combination of circumstances will be fairly unusual.

He serves a notice on the tenant that he is going to require possession within five years—

Mr. Oscar Murton: May I point out that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has slipped one Clause and is on to a new Clause. The five-year period does not arise.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman is saying that it can be done within any period. I am talking about the case of a man who goes abroad, loses his wife, remarries and then dies himself, or the case of a bachelor who marries abroad and subsequently dies, and the widow in each case wishes to regain possession. I am saying that such a combination of circumstances will be fairly unusual, whereas the other kind of circumstance which we have been discussing, where an aged relative lived with him in the house at the time that he was owner-occupier, is going to be fairly frequent. That is the important difference between the two Amendments.
If we talk about families as a whole, what do we mean? Reverting again to the speech made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South, he said that he did not want to include distant relatives. As far as I can see, the word "family" could include a second cousin twice removed, a deceased wife's sister or any one of the noble Lord's, Lord Mitchison's, 19 grandchildren, who, irrespective of whether they have been living with the owner-occupier at the time he lived in the residence, once he has died can come back and regain possession at the end of the period. This would seem quite unreasonable. If those members of the family had never lived in the house, why should they have the right to throw out the tenant? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude, and accept the Bill as it stands.

Sir B. Janner: When considering questions arising under the proposed Amendment we should realise that there is in the Act a provision enabling matters of greater hardship to be dealt with by a court. We cannot take this Clause, or any Amendment relating to it, out of that context. It therefore seems to me that the Government have gone as far as is necessary to cover the quite reasonable point made with regard to an occupier who left, or had to go away for a short period, and


who consequently ought to be able to come back to the tenancy or to the house he has vacated.
When we go further than that we are going beyond anything contained in the Rent Acts at all. The protection in those Acts relates always to the people who were in occupation when the protection was given. For example, the widow or a member of the family of a deceased person is entitled, if the landlord is not agreeable to allowing that person to remain in possession, to ask the court for possession—apart, again, from the question of hardship, which is taken into consideration if there is any dispute on that ground. The Acts at present refer to the person who has lived in the premises, and to no one else. It is obviously quite unreasonable that a person who has not been living in the premises should be able to claim to be entitled to displace someone who is Laving in the premises, and upon whom there would be greater hardship if he or she were moved out than would be the hardship on the person who wanted to come in.
It is not very difficult to realise that if the original owner-occupier died and by his will or the administration of the estate the widow became the landlord of the premises, she would stand in the same place as the landlord, and could claim possession if it were shown that she would suffer greater hardship than would the occupying tenant. There is a very big difference between the position of such a widow who is not actually living in the premises, or the member of the family who is not living in the premises, and that prevailing with regard to the protection given, under the Acts as they now stand, to the member of a family who was living with the tenant, and who, consequently, is entitled to take the place of the deceased tenant—

Mr. Cole: What the hon. Gentleman says sounds most plausible but, with great respect, things do not turn out quite as he says. Let us imagine that the original tenants were husband and wife and the first wife died so that the tenant remained on in sole, single, personal occupation of a sizeable house. The new wife, now the relict of the owner and the owner in succession, comes back with no fewer than four or five children. The hon. Gentleman says that despite this Bill

she could plead hardship in court, whereas she is actually prejudged under paragraph (b) because neither she nor the children have resided there before. Even allowing for the natural hardship as between one person and six, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the court would decide for her, he is very optimistic.

7.15 p.m.

Sir B. Janner: It depends, first of all, on the circumstances of the case. The question of hardship has to be weighed up by the judge who is hearing the application. It is perfectly true that there is the human element—with a judge sometimes deciding one way and another judge, on the same or very similar facts, deciding in another way—but that is inevitable in all legal proceedings. There is no real purpose in pressing that particular point of view, because no court would take precisely the same decision on hardship. The fact remains that the widow, if she succeeded her late husband as owner of the premises, would, as hon. Members know very well, be entitled to apply to the court for possession, if the hardship to her were greater than that to the person in the house.
There is a very big concession here. It is a reasonable concession, but a big one—

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a concession, but he has been talking about the law as it applies to rent-controlled property. In this Clause we are not dealing with rent-controlled property but are bringing certain regulated tenancies and rents above controlled rents within a new system of law. The hon. Gentleman can hardly say whether it is a concession in this case. We are applying new and very strict law to an area that has not been touched before.

Sir B. Janner: That depends on the point of view. My approach is that there should be greater protection for tenants, or that the protection should come within a greater range. The hon. Member and his party think differently. That is why they brought in the 1957 Act. They wanted to finish with control altogether. That Act was a vicious and terrible thing. We are now putting it right and, in doing so, we are seeing to it that the homes of people outside the range shall also


be protected, because the home is the important thing to every individual.
Therefore, this is a concession. I say that it is a reasonable concession, but it is a concession which did not prevail with regard to rent-controlled premises. That is why I call it a concession. It is different from what prevailed in the old Acts. We say "This is a reasonable figure and should be allowed, but you cannot go beyond the reasonable proposal." What is proposed by the party opposite does go beyond it. If hon. Members will weigh up the position, they will realise that there is no question of unreasonableness in the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Murton: I remind the House that in all this discussion we have been forgetting one most important part in the Clause—the fact that the house has been let intentionally and deliberately by the owner of a regulated tenancy with a view to the fact that he is going away on Government duty, in the Armed Forces, or abroad in some other capacity.
The provision in this Clause was included on the plea of the Opposition, and a very good Clause it is. It has been done as an intentional act in a regulated tenancy. The tenant would know this. The tenant would also know when he was expected to surrender the house at the termination of his tenancy. Obviously, under those circumstances there would have been a lease. In all the circumstances I cannot see that when the time comes for the owner-occupier, or any of his relatives, to return there could be any question of hardship to the tenant in the house at that time.

Sir B. Janner: If that is the case, the court will immediately give possession to the owner whoever he may be. What is it that you are worrying about?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not ask what I am worrying about. My only worry is that the debate should be conducted in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Murton: My hon. Friend has mentioned the peculiar predicament in which an owner-occupier might find himself if, his wife having predeceased him, he marries again. If anything should happen to the husband why should that

widow be debarred from gaining possession of her late husband's house? It is quite conceivable that both the husband and the wife might die and leave a child. Why should that child not be allowed to return at the end of the tenancy to take up residence in that house, perhaps with its grandmother? As we see it, this could be done only by allowing this Clause to be amended. I am speaking particularly on the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

Mr. Lubbock: If the hon. Member is speaking to that Amendment, would he say what the word "family" means?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow interventions to lead to new speeches. Debating is debating.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I share the doubts which have been expressed about the Lords Amendment and the words as set out in the Bill originally. I was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he moved that we should disagree with the Lords Amendment, should speak in such unflattering terms of a young man who has acquired a house through the death of an elderly relative, lived in it for a short time and then decided to live abroad, hoping to return after a short time, and has meanwhile let the house on a regulated tenancy with the condition that it should be reoccupied by himself—and who then has married. Why the Parliamentary Secretary should say that he has "collected" or "acquired" a wife and family, I do not know.
The terms of the Clause apply not only to persons who have gone abroad, but to those who have moved to somewhere in the United Kingdom. I do not know why the Parliamentary Secretary should seek to make this pejorative reference to "someone who has never lived in this country at all". This situation would arise far more often than the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) thinks. If a man in the Services is posted within this country and lets his house and then dies this situation could arise. One would be surprised to see how many people would fall within the fair provisions which the Opposition sought to induce the Government to accept. The Government have


gone some way to accept them, but I hope that they will go the rest of the way.
It may be that the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend is imperfect in the sense that it does not precisely define the word "family". Perhaps there is room for improvement in that respect. But there is a whole multitude of contingencies which any of us can foresee without great inventiveness or imagination which would be badly affected by the Bill as it has been amended by the Lords Amendment, or as it would stand if the original wording were restored.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Hon. Members appear to be under a misapprehension as to the purpose of this Clause. As I understand it, it has been inserted in the Bill for the purpose of providing protection for an owner-occupier of a dwelling-house who decides, owing to the exigencies of his occupation or for other reasons, that he must vacate it for a period which he assumes to be temporary—otherwise he would not give the notice referred to under subsection (2,a).
Assuming that he will be away from the tenancy for a period, however short or long, he says, "In the meantime I shall make profitable use of it by letting it, and, unless I am in a position that when I come back and want it again I can get it back, I shall be in a situation in which I shall have to weigh up whether it is worth while letting the property or leaving it empty". In many cases, but for the insertion of this protection, the owner-occupier in those circumstances might decide that it is better to leave the dwellinghouse empty and, accordingly, the value of the dwelling-house to the community would be lost.
To prevent that situation arising and to make the fullest use of accommodation which otherwise would be left vacant, this provision has been inserted in the Bill so that an owner-occupier in those circumstances can safeguard his future position by giving the notice—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but I hope that he will come to the Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: I am coming to it, Mr. Speaker. I am endeavouring to suggest what the purpose of the Clause is in com- 
parison with the Amendment proposed by the Lords. The sole purpose is to protect the owner-occupier. This House felt that it was desirable to go a little further because it would be unfair to people living with the owner-occupier at the time when he vacated the premises—for example, his wife, his widow if he dies, his child, or it may be his mother or his sister, because in many cases a person is looked after by a relative—if at the time when the owner-occupier had wanted to return and he was unable to do so, it would be unfair to the other persons concerned.
The Lords Amendment seeks to go much wider and to extend the protection of the Clause, not simply to the owner-occupier and those who, as it were, were under the umbrella of the owner-occupier because they, although not owner-occupiers, were occupiers with him at the time he last occupied the premises, but by a blanket protection to give the right to any member of his family, and specified members of the family according to the Lords Amendment, whether they were living with him at the time he occupied it or not. The effect of the provisions of either the Lords Amendment or the much narrower Amendment in the name of the right. hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) would be that, instead of a Clause to protect owner-occupiers and those under their umbrellas, we would have a Clause protecting any member of the family, whether he had ever lived in the house or not.
As has been rightly pointed out, such persons, if they acquire the ownership of the dwelling-house, are already entitled to obtain possession if the tenant is unable to prove that his hardship would be greater than theirs. It is necessary to remember that the burden is upon the tenant and not upon the landlord to show that he would suffer greater hardship. Therefore, it is unnecessary to make the Clause into something which it is not and which it has never purported to be. In my view, it is right to retain the words which the House originally approved and leave it, as it was intended to be, as a Clause for the protection of owner-occupiers under their umbrella.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I am happy to follow the hon. and learned Member for


Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), because he has reminded the House of the purpose of the Clause and, in so doing, has answered the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) in relation to greater hardship. I appreciate that the Clause was brought forward for the limited purpose, which I am sure was welcomed throughout the House, of enabling the person going away to be able to take a tenant into his house in the knowledge that at a particular time he could return, whether from abroad or from elsewhere in this country, and regain possession without going through the courts and proving greater hardship. If, as the Clause requires, the landlord must at the time notify the tenant that he intends to rely upon this Clause, the tenant goes into the tenancy with his eyes open. It is surely reasonable that as wide a scope as possible should be given to the landlord and to those who should be able to take what is, after all, the landlord's house back at a later stage?
However, I acknowledge that this is not an easy matter. I do not think that any of the three sets of words are perfect. The Amendment to the Lords Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), if anything, veers too wide in its use of the word "family", which could cover a third or even a fourth cousin. On the other hand, the words at present in the Bill are too narrow. Although I appreciate the Government's argument that the words of the Lords Amendment restrict it to the landlord's wife, his widow or his child, I still think that they are the best of the various sets of words which have been used and that they in fact widen the definition approved by this House, in that they do not require those close relatives of the owner-occupier to have lived with him when he last occupied the house, but nevertheless they do not widen it to the extent of bringing in various other relatives who could go to the courts to attempt to prove hardship.
If the Lords Amendment is to be disagreed to, the Clause will say specifically that those who can recover are either
the owner-occupier or any member of his family who resided with the owner-occupier when he last occupied the dwelling-house".

The words "last occupied the dwelling-house" are open to various interpretations. Do the words of the Bill as approved by the House mean that, unless the member of the family was living with the owner-occupier at the time he gave up possession, that member of the family will not be able to obtain possession? I give as an example an adult son who, having lived all his life in the house, goes away for a period of some months or a year to another part of the country. Is he to be regarded as having occupied the house along with his father when his father last resided there, or is he not covered by the Clause?
To give another example, are university students to be deemed to be residing with their father when they are away at university? They have at some stage resided with him or occupied the house, but the Clause requires that they should have resided there
when he last occupied the dwelling-house".
If that means anything, it presumably means they must be residing there at the time he gives up occupation. Therefore, it seems that the Clause as originally approved by this House unnecessarily restricts those members of a family who would be able to return to a house should something happen to the owner occupier.
In Committee a great deal of sympathy was expressed by hon. Members on both sides for the deserted spouse. She comes into the Clause, although perhaps in a slightly different way. Presumably a wife who has been separated from her husband for a time and who later becomes reconciled with him would have no right to obtain possession of the house if her husband then died, because she would not have been living there when he last occupied it under the Clause.
My final example is that of a man who goes away from the house for a short time and who marries during that period. Is it to be seriously said that on marrying him his wife is not entitled to feel that she has a right to go to what is their house, although temporarily her husband has moved away from it? Let us assume that the man goes abroad for a short time and there marries. Should he die, why should not his widow be entitled to the same right to obtain possession as she would have had had she married him two days before he moved out of the house?
I do not suggest that it is an easy matter. I appreciate the arguments against all three sets of words. However, having accepted the principle that people should be encouraged to let their premises, the best method of keeping it as wide as is reasonable would be to approve of the words in the Lords Amendment rather than the words originally approved by the House.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: We have had a fairly long debate, but this is a very important group of Amendments. The debate has shown how strongly hon. Members on both sides of the House feel about those who were left out of the Clause in its original form and whom we wish to include in the benefit of the Clause by way of the Amendments.
I wish to emphasise the points stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). The Clause cannot be brought into operation unless two fairly restrictive conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the person through whom title is claimed was the owner of the house and occupied the house. That restricts the number who can claim, if they are claiming through him. The second condition is that the owner-occupier created a tenancy on condition that the tenant would get out when the owner-occupier wanted to return—that he gave notice to the tenant to this effect so that all the time the tenant knew that his occupaion was likely to be temporary and took over the premises on those precise conditions and circumstances. Those are the only two conditions on which the Clause and the Amendment can begin to come into operation.
The purpose, according to the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), is to enable certain people to get round the greater hardship provisions of the 1933 Act for undisputed title, without having to go through the courts and have the greater hardship proved on their part. The question is, who are those people? This is where we differ. It has come out in debate that there are certain widows and children of the owner-occupier who are not covered by the Clause but who would be covered by the Lords Amendment and by our Amendment.
When a man purchases a house he does not purchase it merely for himself but for his wife and, even more important, for his

immediate family. It becomes the family home. No one outside this House would suggest that a child who has been born while the owner-occupier is temporarily away from the family home has any less title to possession than a child who happened to be born while the owner-occupier was in occupation of the home.
If the family moved from, say, London to Glasgow, the man in discussing his home with his children would not say to the two who were horn before he moved, "It is your home" and to the other, born after he moved, "It is not your home". It would be the family home, and we are anxious to see that all widows and all children of owner-occupiers should be able to claim recovery through the Clause and should not have to go through the greater hardship provisions. That is not satisfied by the Clause as it stands, although it would be satisfied by the Lords Amendment.
It is said that, in any event, those people not covered by the Clause could go through the hardship provisions of the 1933 Act, but those provisions apply only to the landlord who is applying for occupation of the house as a residence either for himself or son or daughter who is over 18 years of age, or his father or mother. They do not apply, therefore, to an application for a son or daughter who is under 18 years of age.
There may be the case of a family tragedy, where the husband and wife have been killed and where they have left two children born after they left their home. The home is required for those two children—so that they may be brought up in it and so on—by another member of the family, but they cannot get possession of it under the greater hardship provisions and those children would, therefore, not be covered either by the Clause or the greater hardship provisions.

Mr. Crossman: Is the hon. Lady referring to children under 18?

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes. Those over 18 I mentioned earlier. This means that a child who is orphaned by a tragedy is made to suffer again by the provisions of this Measure. At present those children would have the right to recover possession. This Bill would deprive them


of that right. Thus, their position is being worsened by the Bill as drafted.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—who I regret is no longer in his place—wondered what the expression "family" included. I do not see why I should have to do other hon. Member's homework. Indeed, they should not rise to speak before having done their homework. I have tried to find the widest definition of the expression in the landlord and tenant Acts. It can be found in Halsbury's Statutes, Vol. 13, page 1,003. In a footnote, it refers to it having been held that "family" includes brothers and sisters, husband, niece or nephew by blood, adopted child, even though not legally adopted—

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: And grandchildren?

Mrs. Thatcher: Grandchildren have not been mentioned. They would be included in the Clause if they had resided in the house, but not if they had not resided there.
The other interpretation is of a child of the family in relation to one or both of the parties, including an illegitimate or adopted child. The whole tendency of legislation in recent years has been to extend the responsibility of the father towards the members of his family by extending the definition of "family". Although the Clause has a wider definition of "family", it deliberately restricts the people who can benefit from it.
We believe that the most important thing of all is that any widow of the owner-occupier and any child should have the right to claim possession of the house, which is their home, and, therefore—

Mr. Crossman: If they reside there.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Minister could not have listened to what I was saying. I was pointing out that it would be their home; that they would always treat it as their home. If their father has been temporarily absent or if there has been a tragedy of the sort I described, they will still regard it as the family home. Indeed, that might be so by the will of the father. The Lords Amendment would cure the existing defect in the Clause, a defect which we consider to be a considerable one. The Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for

Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) would also cure it and add a number of other people who are members of the family.
My remarks apply more forcibly where it is furnished accommodation. Our Amendment would bring the position for furnished accommodation into line with what we are suggesting for unfurnished accommodation.
Earlier in the debate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister made great play with certain phrases. He said that the Bill would provide a pillow of security. But the children about whom I am speaking cannot even get possession of the house, let alone of the pillow, let alone lay their heads on it. That is because the Clause prevents them from doing so. The right hon. Gentleman used other phrases and I can only turn them back on him. Why is he determined to prevent certain widows and children from claiming the house provided for them by the father? I leave him with that question.

Mr. Crossman: Compared with the last important Amendment we discussed, this Amendment cannot be claimed to involve a principle which is causing difficulty between us. We are, rather, in the great problem that often arises when one makes a concession. Whenever a concession is made one's advisers always say, "They will press you to push the concession further", and the fear is that what one was trying to do will be destroyed.
I would not pretend that what is being sought would destroy the Clause, but it is, nevertheless, true that a concession made for a certain purpose is made for that purpose, while the Amendment would transform it from its original aim. The concession was originally for owner occupiers. We felt that there was a special case and that we should ensure that if the owner-occupier let his house to a tenant he should be able to get back into his home. We started from that basic presupposition, trying to create conditions for it. I was anxious to extend it as far as I could. I did not want it only for fixed-term leases, the House will remember, and we dealt with all. We widened it as far as we possibly could for the owner-occupier.
Then, not unreasonably, it was put to me from both sides that we could not do this just for the owner-occupier but


there must be members of the family who ought to be allowed to gain repossession. So we had the extra references. But how far can one take it beyond the single person, the owner-occupier, and others of his family? It is at this point, of course, that every kind of difficulty comes in.
I have listened with attention to the legal arguments. If I understand the matter aright, the Lords Amendment, though it widens the Clause in one way, narrows it in another, because, although it will give the right to the wife and child, the mother who lives there, whom we had already covered, is excluded by the Amendment. Thus, the situation is made worse for some relatives and better for others. I cannot believe that this would be a great improvement to put into the Bill.
Now, the second argument. Why cannot we just say, "all members of the family"? I must make clear that, once we say "all members of the family", even if we take the definition of "family" as being as narrow as the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said it is—I think it is a good deal wider than that before one finishes with it—we begin to transform the character of the Clause altogether because one then has to take the house not just as a home. I ask the House to come back to the concept of the man in his home and the right to regain possession of the home after he has been away. Now, it is said that we ought to say that not just the man in the home but anybody who is related ought to be allowed to have the property back.
I can accept neither the narrow meaning of the Lords Amendment nor the excessive widening. I am beginning to feel that we were not too bad where we were. It is true, of course, that the Bill in its present form will exclude some people. There will be hard cases. There is no way of doing it which will not create that kind of difficulty. Although the hon. Lady was very stirring, as she always is, and very convincing about it, I must tell the House that there is no way of writing the Clause which will get over the difficulty. Not one of these propositions would avoid difficulties of this kind.
I come back to the final point. The hon. Lady spoke of the pillow of security and she said that I had used

that expression. Yes, I did, but not for landlords—for tenants. Throughout the whole of this discussion about the position of the owner-occupier, his wife and children, his grandmother, his aunt and his cousin, and how we ought to protect all their rights, there has been no mention of the rights of the tenant.

Mr. Cole: rose—

Mr. Crossman: Wait a minute. In this Clause we have, I think, legitimately narrowed his rights.

Mr. Cole: The Minister is wrong.

Mr. Crossman: I must be allowed to finish. Will the hon. Gentleman listen to the argument before saying that it is nonsense? Quite deliberately, we have in this Clause narrowed the rights of the tenant. We have denied him the test of greater hardship; he cannot go to the court now and claim greater hardship. All I am saying is that, in view of the fact of owner-occupation and the clear obligation under the letter of the Clause which we have written, it was reasonable to deny the tenant for the sake of the owner-occupier. But, once we widen it again, I begin to wonder where we are, and I think again of greater hardship. It comes back if we bring in not only the owner-occupier but any member of his family.
In reply to what the hon. Lady said, I can well imagine the case of a tenant who was a divorcee or to whom a tragedy had occurred. We should have to measure one against the other. I agree that we are not measuring one against the other here, but, having excluded the right of the tenant, as we have in this way, we must try to make it fool-proof, narrowing it to absolutely cast-iron limits. This, therefore, raises the question—

Mr. Cole: rose—

Mr. Crossman: I am giving plenty of time. Let the hon. Gentleman listen to the argument.

Mr. Cole: That is not the argument. What the Minister has said is inaccurate. I am quite prepared to admit that he was not listening to my speech, but he ought to have heard me refer specifically to the point he is now raising. I referred to respect for the rights of the tenant in the house and the fact that, by this Bill, we


were diminishing the rights of the owner as against the inalienable rights of the tenant to succession in possession.

Mr. Crossman: I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman and I see eye to eye at least on this Clause. I believe that we are probably the only two people in the House who, throughout the discussion, have realised that tenants must be allowed rights at all. We are reducing the rights of tenants quite dangerously. I think

Division No. 272.]
AYES
[7.54 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Neal, Harold


Albu, Austen
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Alldritt, Walter
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Ogden, Eric


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Orbach, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Owen, Will


Binns, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Padley, Walter


Bishop, E. S.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boardman, H.
Holman, Percy
Palmer, Arthur


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Hooson, H. E.
Pargiter, G. A.


Boyden, James
Horner, John
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Bradley, Tom
Howie, W.
Parker, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Perry, Ernest G.


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, Ernest


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Probert, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rees, Merlyn


Conlan, Bernard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul B.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lomas, Kenneth
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dell, Edmund
Lubbock, Eric
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Solomons, Henry


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McBride, Neil
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Doig, Peter
McCann, J.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Stones, William


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
McGuire, Michael
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, Malcolm
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Symonds, J. B.


English, Michael
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mapp, Charles
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Roy
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Maxwell, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Floud, Bernard
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Foley, Maurice
Mellish, Robert
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mendelson, J. J.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, George


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Warbey, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Weitzman, David


Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gourlay, Harry
Monslow, Walter
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hale, Leslie
Murray, Albert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

that we are right to do it, but I am not prepared to do it to the extent of allowing an unlimited number of people to claim proprietary rights in the house.

I advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 163.

Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.



Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Zilliacus, K.
Mr. Charles Grey and


Winterbottom, R. E.

Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant-Ferris, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Awdry, Daniel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Balniel, Lord
Grieve, Percy
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Onslow, Cranley


Bell, Ronald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Bingham, R. M.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitt, Dame Edith


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Box, Donald
Hay, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Braine, Bernard
Hendry, Forbes
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Roots, William


Buck, Antony
Hordern, Peter
Royle, Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buxton, Ronald
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carlisle, Mark
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sharples, Richard


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Sinclair, Sir George


Cary, Sir Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Chataway, Christopher
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Stainton, Keith


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kilfedder, James A.
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kitson, Timothy
Talbot, John E.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lagden, Godfrey
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Crawley, Aidan
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Crowder, F. P.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Curran, Charles
Longbottom, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilber
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Loveys, W. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McLaren, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wall, Patrick


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Maitland, Sir John
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Webster, David


Farr, John
Mathew, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, William


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Foster, Sit John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, Lady
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper
Mr. Ian Fraser and


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. David Mitchell.


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Amendment proposed to the Bill, in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to: In page 10, line 11, leave out from "family" to end of line 13.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Division No. 273.]
AYES
[8.7 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)


Albu, Austen
Binns, John
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)


Alldritt, Walter
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Atkinson, Norman
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boyden, James
Coleman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Conlan, Bernard


Beaney, Alan
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill":—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 165.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jeger, George (Goole)
Perry, Ernest G.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Doig, Peter
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Skeffington, Arthur


English, Michael
McCann, J.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Ensor, David
MacColl, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
McGuire, Michael
Small, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Solomons, Henry


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacMillan, Malcolm
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Floud, Bernard
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stones, William


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Manuel, Archie
Swain, Thomas


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Ford, Ben
Mason, Roy
Symonds, J. B.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maxwell, Robert
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Garrett, W. E.
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Robert
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Millan, Bruce
Tomney, Frank


Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tuck, Raphael


Hale, Leslie
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Monslow, Walter
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Wallace, George


Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Warbey, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
Weitzman, David


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Murray, Albert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hattersley, Roy
Neal, Harold
Wilkins, W. A.


Hazell, Bert
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Holman, Percy
Orbach, Maurice
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hooson, H. E.
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Horner, John
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Howie, W.
Owen, Will
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, Walter
Woof, Robert


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Zilliacus, K.


Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Palmer, Arthur



Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Mr. Charles Grey and


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Parker, John
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Farr, John


Astor, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)


Atkins, Humphrey
Chataway, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Foster, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gammans, Lady


Batsford, Brian
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gibson-Watt, David


Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gob. &amp; Fhm)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor


Bingham, R. M.
Crawley, Aidan
Gower, Raymond


Black, Sir Cyril
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Grant, Anthony


Box, Donald
Crowder, F. P.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gresham Cooke, R.


Braine, Bernard
Curran, Charles
Grieve, Percy


Brinton, Sir Tatton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Buck, Antony
Eden, Sir John
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hastings, Stephen


Buxton, Ronald
Errington, Sir Eric
Hay, John







Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Marten, Neil
Sharples, Richard


Hendry, Forbes
Mathew, Robert
Shepherd, William


Hiley, Joseph
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hordern, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stainton, Keith


Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Monro, Hector
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Hunt, John (Bromley)
More, Jasper
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Summers, Sir Spencer


Iremonger, T. L.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Talbot, John E.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Kilfedder, James A.
Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kirk, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Kitson, Timothy
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lagden, Godfrey
Peel, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lambton, Viscount
Pitt, Dame Edith
Wall, Patrick


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene


Litchfield, Capt. John
Prior, J. M. L.
Weatherill, Bernard


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pym, Francis
Webster, David


Longbottom, Charles
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Whitelaw, William


Loveys, W. H.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


MacArthur, Ian
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McLaren, Martin
Roots, William
Wolrige-Gordon Patrick


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Royle, Anthony



McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maitland, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Ian Fraser and




Mr. David Mitchell.

New Clause A.—(RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSE FOR RESIDENCE BY OWNER OR HIS WIDOW.)

Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 10, line 29, at end insert new Clause "A":
A.—(1) Where a person has purchased or become the owner of a dwelling-house with vacant possession and intends to occupy it within five years from the date of obtaining vacant possess and has let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, then if—

(a) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and
(b) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for that person or his widow, and the said five years have not elapsed;

the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.
(2) The said conditions are—

(a) that not later than the commencement of the tenancy (or if the tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) the landlord has given notice in writing to the tenant that possession may be recovered under this section; and
(b) that the dwelling-house has not since the commencement of this Act been let by the said person on a regulated tenancy with respect to which the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection was not satisfied."

8.15 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Clause got into the Bill during the Report stage in another place where it had also been under consideration in Committee. The principle was also discussed during our proceedings. This represents the best attempt that could be made to deal with an admittedly difficult problem—that of people who want to acquire a house for their retirement and wish to be able to get possession of it when they retire without going to the court to establish greater hardship.
As my right hon. Friend said when we were considering the Bill earlier, he would be glad to achieve a formula to deal with the retirement problem if he could do so. We considered it very carefully and concocted as many different varieties of possible provisions as we could find. The main difficulty is in getting a definition of retirement—for instance, something which would exclude a person who retired, started work again and retired once more. We could not find any really satisfactory way of limiting such a provision to retirement.
The noble Lords who concocted this new Clause found themselves in the same difficulty. They have not been able to find any definition of retirement for the


purpose of the Bill. The new Clause in fact has nothing to do with retirement. It deals with a quite different point—the right of getting possession after a short period of letting. The Clause begins by specifying a period of five years within which the new owner would be entitled to recover possession under certain conditions. This in itself, however, presents certain difficulties as to intention and how it is to be established.
First, the owner has to establish that it is his intention to occupy the house within five years. Then the court must be satisfied that the house is required as a residence for himself or his widow during the five years. Then there are certain conditions similar to those in the Government's Clause 14, including the provision that not later than the commencement of the tenancy he must have given notice in writing that he might want to recover the house under this new Clause.
Any reasonable person advised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), as a reasonable people always would be, would of course serve notice under subsection (2,a) as a matter of course. It would then be heads he won and tails he did not lose, because if he wanted the house, he would have given notice and would come within the Clause, and if he did not want it, he would not have suffered, although the tenant would have had uncertainty and lack of security during the five years. What the Clause really says is that any person who has not occupied the house before—that case is covered by the previous Clause—could get possession of the house within five years if he wanted it for his own occupation, but without having to prove greater hardship. There would therefore be a substantial breach of the principle of security of tenure as established in the Bill and the 1933 Act.
That is why my right hon. Friend feels that, although there is a genuine problem, the problem of people who know that they will have to leave their place of employment and need to find some other home, this suggested provision goes much wider than that. It would use the special problem of retirement much more widely than intended and would make a substantial inroad into the 1933 Act, an inroad which would be unjust, because that Act balances the claims of the tenant,

who has the house and whose home it is and who may have been there for a number of years, and the owner who wishes to occupy the house under this Clause, he would be able to do so without any possibility of the court judging between the comparative hardship in the two cases.
I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment, because it is not limited to houses bought for retirement, but is in fact a provision for giving possession to an owner who wants to live in the house within five years. That is a fairly long time during which a tenant may suddenly find himself faced with eviction. Having to serve notice would not be a protection for the tenant, because notice would be served in almost every case and such tenants would then be in a special position in that they would not know what security they had.
It may be that redrafting would get over another difficulty, but with the present form of the provision it would be difficult to disprove the owner's intention to occupy. He might be able to persuade the county court judge that he intended to occupy and then, having obtained possession, he could sell with vacant possession. That would be an abuse of the intentions of the provision. The period of five years is somewhat arbitrary from the point of view of people who are intending to retire. In some cases it would be too short and some people would want to have a certainty of having a place when they retired and would require longer than five years. The arguments which have been advanced in support of the retirement Clause are not met by this provision except for comparatively few people.
The state of play at the moment is that there is already a good deal of protection for people who want to get possession. There is the substantial concession which we have made when the purchaser occupied the house before letting it. If it is let furnished on a fixed term tenancy, the tenant cannot stay on with security of tenure after the tenancy has expired. The provisions of the 1933 Act cover all cases where the owner wants the house for his own use and can establish greater hardship. Therefore, the courts have a good deal of scope for intervening to protect the owner-occupier in these cases.
This provision would go too far beyond the common ground of retirement to make


it wise to accept it. I repeat that this is a confession of failure on our part, on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and of another place. We have all tried to find a definition of retirement which would work, but we have been unable to do so and the attempt in this Amendment carries with it implications which are far too wide to make it desirable to include this provision.

Mr. Murton: I am astonished, indeed amazed, to hear the Parliamentary Secretary admit a confession of failure on the part of his party to find a suitable provision to meet this need. We discussed this matter at great length in Committee in an effort to meet the difficulty of the person who before retirement obtains a house in the locality where he wishes to end his days. In my constituency, as in that of many other hon. Members, particularly along the South Coast, this is a very common occurrence. Over the years people have been buying houses in anticipation of their retirement and, while continuing to live in the Midlands or in London, have put tenants into those houses until the time came to retire.
In these more delectable areas there is a shortage of accommodation of this type. Someone who is fortunate enough to be able to retire to a pleasant place and who gets his eye on a house, perhaps some years off retirement, will not have the property secure for him when he eventually retires from his full-time occupation if the Bill goes through without this provision.
8.30 p.m.
This state of affairs does not prove any hardship to a tenant who may be put into a house on such understandings. One must remember that this house has to be obtained in the first place by the owner with vacant possession. He is not buying a house with a sitting tenant. Therefore, any tenant who goes into a house under these conditions does so with his eyes open. If, as things are in this Clause, matters are not sufficiently watertight, might I suggest that they can be so made? If a tenant becomes rent-regulated, then there will presumably be a lease which will be determinable within some period after five years.
I would suggest that, in our eyes, this would meet the objection of the Govern- 
ment on this matter. Even supposing that the owner were unfortunate enough to die before he took possession of his house, I am quite certain that, in a short period of five years, his widow would be prepared to wait until the lease was determined before she went into occupation. The new Clause is very narrow in scope. Our noble Friends in another place purposely made it narrow in scope. There is no question of ownership being claimed by any member of this man's family other than his own widow. It does not extend to his children, and therefore there can be none of the objections raised, as in the case of the other Clauses.
It is also limited in operation. It is for five years only. While I am prepared to believe that there will not be a great volume of people for whom this legislation would provide, it is, nevertheless, a very desirable Clause. It will meet a requirement which will cover a large number of places in England, within retirement areas, such as Poole, Torquay, Folkestone and Brighton. I recommend that it should take effect.

Sir B. Janner: I entirely agree that a person who has retired should be safeguarded, if at all possible, against the possibility of not being able to occupy his house. What hon. Members on the other side of the House have overlooked is the fact that it is a hardship for a person who is retiring soon, or who has retired, not to be able to occupy a house which is his. Consequently, as it has not been possible to draft a Clause to meet those specific cases, the owner of the house starts with the presumption in his favour. Sitting on this Front Bench are some gentlemen learned in the law, who have practised law for a very considerable time. It is not beyond the ingenuity of a lawyer to advise his client that, if he wants to let a place which he intends to occupy himself on retirement within the five years, he should let it to someone who cannot possibly, or is not likely to suffer as great a hardship as that person who retires and who wants occupation of that house.
There are not so many houses available for occupation that one cannot pick and choose, to a considerable extent, the tenant one wants to place in the house. Therefore a landlord who has purchased a house for this purpose will not find


very considerable difficulty in getting someone as a tenant who would not endure serious hardship if, in the course of five years, he were asked to go elsewhere.

Mr. Costain: indicated dissent.

Sir B. Janner: I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. That is the position. One can pick one's tenants, particularly for this kind of house—I do not say in every case—[Laughter.]—I do not know why hon. Members opposite are amused. I am sure that they would agree that a person who was suffering very severe hardship should not be dispossessed.

Mr. Costain: If the hon. Member fears the hardship Clause, is he aware of the other Clause in the Bill?

Sir B. Janner: If I am not, I ought to be. I have been dealing with these matters for very many years. I do not say that I know the Bill thoroughly inside out, but I know the basis of the question of hardship to which I am referring and I know how it has been interpreted by the country over the years.
This Clause is not consistent with the tenor of the Acts which provide security of tenure. Quite contrary to that, if accepted, it would mean, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, that every person who purchased a house would be able to insert a Clause and would be advised if he intended to occupy the house at any future time—[An HON. MEMBER: "It says 'five years'."] I know that it says five years, but the intention in the mind of the individual at the time that he purchased may very soon alter. He may retire seven, eight, or nine years afterwards. Anybody buying a house is likely to insert a Clause in the agreement when he lets the house to the effect that he would want to occupy it within five years for his retirement. The Clause would destroy the tenor of the Acts dealing with security in the sense that practically every house bought with vacant possession subsequent to the insertion of the Clause in this Act would contain a proviso against it. In my view, that would be a serious matter.
The Bill is intended to restore—and hon. Members opposite had better listen to this very carefully—the security which,

in many cases, they destroyed by the 1957 Act. They must not overlook the fact that the Bill reintroduces protection for tenants who were protected before the 1957 Act but who were deprived of security by it. A Clause of this nature would give an additional right to landlords who otherwise would not be able to obtain possession. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed. The Rent Acts applied to tenancies. The 1957 Act destroyed the protection of the house. In consequence, a large number of houses became decontrolled and there was creeping decontrol which today is very serious for many tenants. By the Clause it is sought to place a restriction upon those tenancies, apart from others, which were protected before the vicious 1957 Act was brought into force. We strongly resent that.
If hon. Members opposite can find a word to cover the short point which they have in mind, that is an entirely different matter, but a wide Clause of this nature would mean further decontrol over and above the creeping decontrol which came in with the 1957 Act. In these circumstances, I advise the House to vote against the insertion of this proposal in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen): Mr. Lubbock.

Mr. Lubbock: I hope that I am in order in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on your recent elevation on the first occasion when I have spoken since you have occupied the Chair, and also in saying that my pleasure at seeing you in the Chair would be complete were it not allied with a slight tinge of sadness at no longer having your company on this bench.
The objections which have been made to the new Clause are extremely valid. When we discussed the same matter in Committee of the House, we talked specifically about the case of retirement. Indeed the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) addressed his remarks entirely to that case. As, however, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, another place has found it so difficult to frame a definition of retirement that it took the simple way out and left that word out of its new Clause.
I am not a lawyer and I find it difficult to understand where this great difficulty lies. I thought that in the original form in


which the Bill appeared in this House, it could have been easily interpreted by the county courts. If, however, greater experts than I say that this is not possible, I accept it from them; and as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has repeated it on many occasions, I suppose that I must accept what he says. Nevertheless, it is rather a pity that the Government did not consider my suggestion, which I made at the time, that the concession should be limited to certain groups of people who could be easily defined.
We have had sympathy expressed in all parts of the House for people in certain occupations who have to buy a house in anticipation of retirement. I suggest that if the Government considered applying the Clause to those people alone, they could frame a definition comparatively simply. We have talked about policemen, firemen, nurses and matrons and others in hospitals. All these are people who occupy accommodation owned by their employers as part of the terms of their employment. Surely, it would be possible quite easily to overcome this problem of retirement and framing a definition. I realise that it is too late now, but I put forward the suggestion in the hope that it may percolate through the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's mind and come forward, perhaps, as a small amendment to the Bill in the next Session of Parliament.
My suggestion is that we limit a concession of the kind which is made in the new Clause to persons who occupy accommodation provided by their employers and the date of whose relinquishing the accommodation is well known in advance. We know that a person who is employed as, say, a fireman will retire at, I think, the age of 60. Similarly, a policeman has a fixed date for retirement. At the time when he comes to retire, the police or fire authority or the hospital would say "It is harsh, but you must give up your accommodation", which he might have occupied for many years. It is those people in the main who have to purchase houses in anticipation of retirement. This was my suggestion at the time, and I thought that it found a certain amount of favour in the eyes of the Government. If one were to do this one would cover the vast majority of the cases which hon. Members have in mind.
8.45 p.m.
Quite obviously, if I am an ordinary employee of an industrial firm I already have somewhere to live. Before my retirement I am an owner-occupier or I am a tenant of a local authority or I am a tenant of a private landlord, and when the time comes for me to retire I may have bought another house in Poole, but I am not going to be thrown out on the streets if I cannot occupy it immediately.
Therefore, I would urge upon the Government that there is a great distinction between the two types of case. In the first case a person has to relinquish his accommodation at the time of retirement. In the second case, it is not a great hardship to have to hang on in the house one occupies as an owner-occupier or as a tenant of a local authority or of a private landlord. I wish that a definition along those lines could be framed.
I am not prepared to accept the Lords Amendment as it stands. While everyone has talked about retirement no one has addressed himself to the fact that the Lords Amendment nowhere mentions that word. I would certainly not like to see such a wide extension of the power of a landlord to get out of the provisions of the Bill. I am convinced by the arguments which have been put that many people who really do not intend to retire would try to use the proposed Clause and give notice of their intention that they intend to reoccupy property within the period of five years—because they do not have to convince a court that they will retire at the end of five years: it does not say that here; and I fear that there would be large-scale evasion of the Measure if we were to pass the Lords Amendment in its present form.
However, I do appeal to the hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully what I have said to see if there is a way round the difficulty of drawing up a statutory definition of retirement.

Mr. David Weitzman: One appreciates the idea behind this Lords Amendment, and certainly if the condition of housing in this country were different from what it is now and if tenancies could be obtained more easily one would very much support an Amendment of this kind, but, after all, one ought to


look at this matter from the practical point of view.
As I read the Lords Amendments there are two types of case which would be affected. First of all there is the case where the tenancy has been created, a regulated tenancy exists, and where a person has purchased a house within five years; the Bill comes into being, and under subsection 2(a) of this new Clause a notice is given not later than six months after the commencement of the Bill. In that case we have a very difficult question, which a court would have to tackle, of proving that the purchaser of the house had the intention to occupy it within five years. That is always a very difficult matter for a court to interpret, and that could be the first difficulty which would have to be got over.
The second point with regard to that type of case is that we get a person who says, "I purchased the house within five years; I intended to occupy it within five years. I now give notice within six months of the commencement of the Act that I want possession of it." Why in a case like that should the court not apply the ordinary principles of considering the position of the landlord and considering the position of the tenant, comparing them together, and dealing with them on the ground of greater hardship? The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) mentioned hard cases where people purchased houses in anticipation of retirement. That, surely, is the type of case where a county court judge, presented with the facts, could well judge the question which would be the greater hardship, that of the tenant or that of the individual who purchased the house with a view to retirement.
Let me consider the second instance to which this Clause applies. In this instance a person purchases a house and intends to occupy it, or says that he intends to occupy it, within five years and creates a regulated tenancy. It has been said—and it is an extremely important point—that every lawyer who makes an agreement of that type will advise his client to put in as a precaution a clause stating, "I intend to occupy this house within five years". He would be a stupid lawyer if he did not advise his client to do that, and there one has an

example of how the insertion of such a clause provides people with a chance of evading the provisions of the Bill. They will have the opportunity of putting in that clause. They may or may not intend to occupy the house, but they will put in that provision as a precaution, and, having created the tenancy, at a later date they will ask for possession. They will point to the clause and say, "Look at the agreement. We inserted a clause that we intended to do it. That is prima facie proof of our intention", and then, if they prove that they desire possession, the only thing the county court judge will be able to do is decide whether, under subsection 1(b), he is satisfied that the residence is required for that person or for his widow. The question of the tenant's conditions and of his hardship will not arise at all.
Surely to state that is to state objections which make it impossible to accept an Amendment of this kind. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) said, this is really inserting a new provision in favour of landlords in a Bill, the primary object of which is to try to restore a measure of security to tenants. We do not want to extend the law in that way, and I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Costain: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has really read the Amendment. It refers to a person having purchased or become the occupier of a dwelling-house with vacant possession. We are talking here of a house which somebody has bought and which he has the right to occupy. We are taking nothing away from tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) referred to the situation in his constituency. A similar situation obtains at Folkestone where people want to buy a house for their retirement.

Mr. Weitzman: I had not forgotten that. He bought it with vacant possession, but he did not choose to occupy it. He granted a tenancy.

Mr. Costain: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made my point even stronger than I could. There are a number of people who want to retire to Folkestone. I am sorry that the


hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) has left. On other occasions in this Chamber I have pointed out to him that when somebody moves to Folkestone he vacates a house at Leicester. We are talking about a person who has bought a house with vacant possession. He can move in when he likes. He is not depriving anybody of anything.
The point which the Parliamentary Secretary has not made is that according to this provision a person who buys a house must leave it vacant until he retires. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite want houses to remain vacant until people retire to them? The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said that many people know when they are going to retire. They know that they will retire within four or five years, or perhaps even within one or two. Should they wait until the moment they retire before they buy a house, or should they buy a house now and let it to somebody who can make proper use of it?
The Parliamentary Secretary has another bright idea. He says that a person who buys a house for his retirement ought to live in it at weekends, because once he has become an owner-occupier he has rights under the Bill. Does he want him to live in for a weekend to establish his right under the Bill? Certainly under the previous Clause he has that right.
The hon. Member for Leicester, who on every occasion that I have heard him speak in the Chamber has advanced a wonderful ideal about a hardship clause, is a proper gambler. He says that a house owner must pick a tenant who in five years' time will have less need for the house than that owner. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here. He is a learned Gentleman well versed in the law of landlord and tenant, but how on earth an owner can pick a tenant whose need for the house in five years' time is less than his own, I really do not understand. If the Clause is rejected, we are left with the alternative that a person who wants to buy a house must do so at the moment of retirement and then move into it, or he must live in it for a weekend, and no one will object. If he lives in it for a weekend as an owner-occupier, he has special rights under the Bill, It does not matter about the cost of living in it for a weekend. That satis-

fies hon. Members opposite. It must be remembered that we are still speaking about a house with vacant possession and not a house depriving anyone of anything. The alternative is to pick the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary tenant.
If we were to accept the recommendations of the Government, the result would be a number of vacant houses at Poole, Folkestone and other places, because the Government have not the foresight to see tthat if they want to bring in controls they are restricting the occupation of houses.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Like the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I find it difficult to understand why the Government have difficulty in defining what is meant by "retirement". We have put up a large number of suggestions to them. I myself put up one, but it was ruled out of order because it involved expenditure. I suggested that a register should be kept where a person could register one house that he wanted to keep for his retirement. If the Government really want to find a way of doing it, I am sure that they can. I cannot understand why we have to bother about defining "retirement" so strictly. Is it so very unreasonable that an owner of one house should be able to establish his right to recover possession of it? Hon. Members opposite talk as if it is a problem of mass ownership of large numbers of houses and of one man establishing a claim to move into twenty different houses at once for owner-occupation. That is pure moonshine. It is one man, one house, and I cannot think it unreasonable for one man to establish a claim to move into a house of his own.
I fully agree that the Lords Amendment does not adequately cover the cases that we have in mind, but it is the best so far and, since there is no indication that the Government are ready to substitute something which will genuinely cover the case of a man who wants to provide for his retirement, I hope that they will let the Clause go through, inadequate as it is.

Mr. Allason: We had an Amendment down on Report stage which would have met the case of retirement, but, as I remember, the principal objection to it was the danger of bogus retirement. It was


said that a man might retire a number of times over in order to get vacant possession of a series of houses. We have now the objection to a rather wider Clause which does not mention retirement, that there would be bogus use made of it. I do not accept that that danger exists.
First of all, let us look at whether it is right to extend the Clause. We intend principally to cover retirement, but is it so terrible that it also covers the position of a man who wants to move to another part of the country because he has a job in prospect, say, in Scotland but is not moving for a year or so, and he decides to buy a house in Scotland with the intention of moving into it when his job takes him there? Is it so very dreadful that he should be allowed to let the house for the short period during which it would otherwise be vacant on the understanding that he can regain possession in order to move to Scotland?
9.0 p.m.
I have no objection to this Clause being extended, but the Clause is very necessary as otherwise the owner of the house has various alternatives. One alternative is to leave the house vacant until he wants to occupy it. That is very undesirable in all respects, as the Government quite clearly feel, because they have met the objections in regard to the owner-occupier in Clause 14.
It is also open to the owner to move in and occupy the vacant house. It would be interesting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's views on genuine occupation as referred to in Clause 14. Whether to move in for the weekend with a camp bed and a frying pan would be deemed to be occupation for the purpose of Clause 14, I do not know. I rather think that somewhat better occupation would be necessary, which means that the new owner would be put to very considerable expense in moving into the house in order to register himself as the owner-occupier of his new house and then go back to his other house and be protected by Clause 14. I think that anyone would agree that that is a rather expensive and unnecessary way of meeting the difficulty.
Another choice, which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, would be

to let the house furnished, but not everyone wants to buy a complete fresh set of furniture for a house into which he intends to move in a year's time when he has already got a set of furniture in his own house. That is another undesirable and expensive way of dealing with the problem.
The next alternative is that proposed by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), who suggested that the owner should deliberately find a tenant who would be in less need when the time came than the owner himself—

Sir B. Janner: I did not say that at all. I said that the tenants would flock to the landlord, not that the landlord would have to look round.

Mr. Allason: The definite suggestion was that the tenant to be selected should be the one with least ground of hardship, so that the man with four or five children would stand no hope of a tenancy. The suggestion was that the landlord should find someone, preferably a bachelor, so that when the time came it would be obvious whose need was the smaller. It is a most improper way of going about affairs to encourage lettings to those with the least degree of hardship rather than to those with the greatest degree of hardship.
The Parliamentary Secretary objected that this would be a great breach in the principles of the 1933 Act. The principles of the 1933 Act are there to protect the tenant against the landlord who wants possession—probably the landlord who has just bought, because if the landlord has recently had vacant possession he is unlikely to have let, and is about to take it back again. In the circumstances of 1933 the great danger was the new landlord who purchased a rent-restricted house with the express intention of getting it for himself. The moment he bought the house, he applied to the court for possession. Here it is right that there should be the test of greater hardship, because why should a landlord who has just bought be able to dispossess the tenant?
This is a very different case from the genuine case of a man wanting to live in future in another part of the country. That man buys a house with vacant possession, and has to decide whether or


not to let it. If he lets it, there is an entirely different position from that under the 1933 Act. I do not agree that this would be a great breach of the 1933 Act.
The Parliamentary Secretary is always terribly worried about bogus claims, but he does not seem to have much respect for the courts. The court has to be satisfied that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for the person concerned. If he has obtained it by a bogus transaction, the court will be aware of that. It will not be beyond the wit of the Ministry to ensure that in the event of it turning out that by bogus means and false pretences the landlord has got possession, he shall not be allowed to obtain vacant possession for the purpose of selling it. That is all we want to ensure. I am certain that the bogusness can be dealt with. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will think about this matter again.

Mr. Hendry: Throughout debates on this Bill, the underlying theme has been that it is a humanitarian Measure designed to prevent hardship and injustice. All the thought up to now seems to have been for tenants. The attitude of hon. Members opposite opposite in this discussion appears to be that a landlord by nature is bad and the tenant is a poor, helpless person who requires protection in all circumstances. I suggest that very often there is greater hardship to a landlord.
This possibly is a case which would not come within the scope of the 1933 Act. With all deference to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), for whose activity in these matters I have great respect, there seems little possiblity of any subterfuge or injustice in this matter. A man acquires a house with vacant possession and lets it to a tenant on the distinct understanding that the let is temporary. He is simply deferring the vacant possession, which he has deliberately acquired, until a certain event takes place. There seems no possiblity of any abuse because the owner must satisfy the court that he requires the house for his own occupation. This is not a case of someone buying an enormous block of flats and deciding to live in each flat in turn. It is a case of a man who buys an individual house specifically for his own occupation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider cases where this takes place.

Sir B. Janner: What the hon Member is in fact saying is that what has prevailed throughout the continuance of the whole of the Rent Acts from 1915 onwards is that a person who purchases a house wanting to occupy it later should be entitled to occupy it irrespective of hardship.

Mr. Hendry: I suggest that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, should read the Amendment now before us and should read the previous Acts. Under the previous Acts the landlord would not be entitled to get possession of the house even for his own occupation unless he could show hardship, but he did not have to prove that he had already owned the house with vacant possession. Under the Amendment the condition precedent is that he must have had vacant possession. The only difference between this position and Clause 14 as originally approved by this House is that under the original one he had to live in it.
I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to consider certain circumstances. It may be physically impossible for the owner of the house to occupy it himself in the initial stages. During the recent Recess I was in South Arabia, where many British civil servants are serving the Federal Government under the most insecure circumstances imaginable. Some of them are constituents of mine. I spoke to them and to their friends. They were all very worried about the possibility of getting housing accommodation in this country when their present tour of duty ends. That may be next month or in five years' time. Nobody knows how long they will be continued in their overseas occupation.
These people are to a large extent buying houses and ordering houses to be built here at the moment. Many of these houses are being built in my constituency which, like Poole and other places on the South Coast, is a highly desirable area to retire to. Many of these people have ordered houses and it is physically impossible for them to take themselves from South Arabia to Aberdeenshire to occupy these houses purely to bring themselves within Clause 14. These people will have no protection whatever, unless the new Clause is inserted. I plead with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to take into account the circumstances of these people who are in as bad a position as any tenant could possibly be.
I have dealt with the prospective landlord. I should like now to deal with prospective tenants. I do not know what type of solicitor's practice the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West has. It may or may not be the same as mine. Mine is a country practice where I to a very large extent act as a factor for houses. In other words, people come to me and say, "I have a house. I would like a tenant for it, but only for a short period".
I know from my own personal experience that there are many people who are only too willing and anxious to take knowingly a tenancy for a short period. I let such a house last week. I let it to a person who had his name on the waiting list of a local authority. He knew full well that some time within the next two years he would get a local authority house, but in the meantime he had to have somewhere to live. He was perfectly content to take a house which I had available for a definite period of two years. This is a very fair proposition. The tenant knows exactly where he is. The landlord knows that at the end of two years the house is there for him if the time has come for him to occupy the house.
There are hundreds of these cases. They are not all people who are on local authority lists. They are people who may have a temporary job in the locality and who want a residence there for a short period. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West knows that there are such people. These people are willing to take such tenancies with their eyes open. What is secured is justice, not only for the owner of the house, but for the prospective tenant of the house, without hardship to anybody.
I have mentioned the case of overseas civil servants. Their plight is very serious indeed. They are completely uncertain as to the future. Anything we can do, either in this Bill or in any other Bill, to help these people is well worth doing.
There are many people besides them. I will instance two cases, one from my own constituency and one not very far from it, which have taken place in recent months. The first was a case of a schoolmaster who died comparatively young leaving a widow. In anticipation of his retirement he had bought a house to

which he was hoping to retire in due course. The tenant understood full well that this was to take place. He was not sure when the schoolmaster would retire or whether he would move to another school.
The widow found herself in a very parlous condition. She was requested by her late husband's employing authority to find accommodation elsewhere. In this case the house had never been occupied. It was not the family home. It had been bought with vacant possession specifically for the teacher and his wife to retire to. Unless this suggested new Clause or something very like it is inserted in the Bill, that widow will have no protection whatsoever. There will be a far greater injustice to the widow than there ever would be to the tenant.
9.15 p.m.
The second case—I will be brief because I do not wish to delay the House—concerns a farmer who was getting on in years and whose mother-in-law died and left a nice little house in an adjoining market town. It was a desirable property to which to retire, although it had never been the family home of either the farmer or his wife. Nevertheless, the house had sentimental connections for them, it having been the home of the wife's mother, and the farmer had to decide what to do about the property. It would not have been judicious for him to have moved into the house, it being five miles away from his farmhouse, and he therefore did not wish to occupy it until his retirement.
He was faced with the problem of what to do. The house having sentimental connections, he and his wife did not want to give it up, so as he would not be requiring it himself for two, three or five years, he could either leave it unoccupied or let it on a short-term basis. Should he leave it unoccupied, rotting away, or should he—as he could with the greatest of ease—let it to a tenant who was prepared to accept it on a short-term basis? That tenant would obviously keep it in order while he was in occupation and, at the same time, the property would be providing much-needed accommodation as a temporary measure for that tenant. These are the sort of cases where hardship arises.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Gentleman has cited two pathetic cases. Would he not agree that these are cases with which the county court judge could deal under the hardship provisions?

Mr. Hendry: Why should the landlords in such cases be asked to go to that trouble? If there is vacant possession, why should the landlord not be able to decide the course which is best for the property as well as for himself and the tenant? I have not been speaking of rapacious or Rachman-type landlords but of perfectly normal lettings. A landlord in the position I have described knows that he can get a tenant who, with his eyes open and having taken advice, is prepared to occupy the property on a short-term let. That must be advantageous to both the owner and the tenant. No injustice arises.
There are many cases such as those I have described, but I return to the plight of the overseas civil servant, for his plight is extremely parlous. I appeal to the Minister, on their behalf, if on no one else's behalf, to think again on this issue and adopt the Amendment.

Mr. Carlisle: I am becoming thoroughly sickened by the synthetic expressions of sympathy which are permeating from the Government Front Bench. We have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government admit that a genuine problem exists. We have been told time and again by the Minister that he is greatly sympathetic to the people who buy houses which they intend to occupy when they retire. We are then told—and we were told this throughout the Committee stage, on Report, and again today—that the Government have sympathy with these people, when the truth is that they are not in the slightest interested in these people's interests and rights.
If the object of the Bill is to stop tenants from being required to pay exorbitant rents and to give security of tenure to tenants who might otherwise be evicted so that rapacious landlords can obtain further rent increases, do not the Government appreciate that there is a distinction between the landlord who lets for a profit and the man whom the Amendment is designed to affect? I am speaking of the man who buys a house with vacant possession and who wishes to

live in it himself eventually but who, rather than leave the house unoccupied for a period of up to five years, wants to let it at a reasonable rent to a tenant who is anxious to rent it for that period.
After everything that has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, I cannot see why they object to a man letting a house in which he intends to live at some time in the future to a tenant who is prepared to rent that house for that period, knowing that at the end of it the owner will wish to occupy it himself. Why should not the owner have that set out in the Clause so that he knows that he is entitled to recover possession? If the Government are sincere when they say that they are sympathetic to these people, why will they not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to the Chamber. He will by now have had a report from the Parliamentary Secretary of the strong expressions of view which have been given during the debate. I think that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. Having a great respect for the hon. Gentleman, I can only say that I have never heard from him a more lame and inadequate performance, arguing what, intelligent man that he is, he realised was a rotten case. He began by saying that he was full of sympathy and very sorry that something could not be done to help the people whom the Lords Amendment would help, and it was a confession of failure both by the Government and by the Opposition that nothing could be done.
To begin with, this is a problem created by the Government. Under the law as it now stands and will stand until the Bill receives the Royal Assent, there will be decontrol in these cases because this Amendment affects only cases in which the landlord has abtained vacant possession so that, under the 1957 Act, there would be decontrol. It is, therefore, a problem created by the Government.

Sir B. Janner: The right hon. Gentleman's Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, created by the present Government. I understand the hon. Gentleman's doubt. They will


not be the present Government for long. I am speaking of the Government as of 1st November, as the Americans put it.
It is not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to say, "We are very sorry for these people. It is a confession of failure that we cannot do anything for them, but we happen not to like this new provision which"—this was his rather curious expression—"got into the Bill somehow in another place". He used another curious phrase and said that it had been concocted in another place. In fact, there is a problem here, and the other place has put before us a practical proposal for dealing with it. Whether it is perfect or not is not the issue. Is it the best solution to the problem, or must we say that it is too difficult and we will not even try to solve it?
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—I have already mentioned he is under some strain at the moment—gave an extraordinary performance. I suppose that it was a demonstration of the new "Lib-Lab" alliance. Throughout the Committee stage of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman's heart had bled for the people here concerned—I think that he had even found one who lived in Orpington—and he had been passionate in their defence. Today, he said, "I suppose that the Government are right and we had better not try to do anything".
The story which the Parliamentary Secretary told in support of inaction was an appalling one. He told us that it would be difficult to prove the desire of the owner to occupy the premises. But the desire of the owner to occupy premises and the question whether he was really seeking to do so has been one of the main questions which the courts have been dealing with in the past forty or fifty years under the previous Acts in deciding the balance of hardship. It is ludicrous suddenly to suggest that, in present circumstances, it has become impossible.

Mr. Cole: Would my right hon. Friend also like to address his intelligent mind to the fact that no one in this world short of a lunatic would buy a house with vacant possession to let and with the rent officer standing at his elbow to lower the rent?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is always much in what my hon. Friend says from his practical experience.
There is the argument that this would be open to abuse. How on earth is it to be open to abuse? If a man says, "This is my house, of which I have had vacant possession, and I want to occupy it", is it suggested that the courts will go on giving him possession of a series of different houses in response to that plea? One of my hon. Friends put it very vividly. If one believes this view, someone who owns a large block of flats might be able to persuade a gullible judge that he wishes continuously or in succession or simultaneously to occupy personally every flat in the block. But no court would listen to that plea in respect of more than one house. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows that as well as anybody else in this House.
This talk of abuse is no more than an excuse for doing nothing. Why is this considered to be such a difficult thing to do? Why did the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) say that this was contrary to the whole tenor of the Bill? If he looks at Clause 14 as is stands, he will see very similar provisions, so similar that the unscrupulous landlord wishing to abuse this Clause has only to go into occupation of the house for a bit to get the advantages of Clause 14 which the Government are not trying to take out. Therefore, so far from being contrary to the tenor of the Bill, it is wholly consistent with the line that it takes. All it does is to suggest that people who either cannot or are too scrupulous to go through the farce of temporary occupation should have the same rights in obtaining possession of the house to which they want to retire as those which we have accepted under Clause 14 in respect of those who have actually been in the house and have then gone abroad.

Sir B. Janner: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. All I said was that it was contrary to the tenor of the Rent Acts, not this Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That does not seem to me to be a very powerful argument. We are engaged in discussion of this Bill, which is admittedly—indeed, the Minister claims it as a merit—very contrary to the tenor of the previous Rent


Act. Goodness knows why he claims that but he does. If that is so, the argument by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West surely has no validity at all.
The simple point is that these are premises of which the owner has obtained vacant possession. If we do not have a Clause of this sort, owners who intend in due course to occupy their houses simply will not let them. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill to compel them to do so. They will keep them empty and be able to go into them when they want to do so. The houses will deteriorate, the local authorities will lose the rates and the country will lose a certain total of accommodation.

Mr. Weitzman: Nonsense.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not nonsense. I have come across cases in which solicitors in these circumstances are properly and wisely advising their clients not to let a tenant into occupation during the interim period before the owner desires to occupy the premises. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) knows that if he were consulted professionally he would give the same advice to his clients.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am dealing with the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) will contain himself for a moment. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that this is the advice that, as a lawyer, he would give his client. He knows that that is the advice that is being given.
Thus, the situation is that we are getting accommodation which could be occupied to the benefit of the tenants, to the benefit of the owners, to the benefit of the local authorities and to the benefit of the rates but which is likely in certain cases to be left vacant because the Government will not provide a method under which occupation could be regained.

Mr. Maxwell: Is it not the case that solicitors are giving that advice not for the reason mentioned by the right hon.

Gentleman but because the owner wishes to sell the house and make a profit on the sale?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been following the argument with his usual attention. We are here concerned solely with a house which has come into the possession of a person who wishes, in due course, to occupy it. Surely the one course, if one wishes to occupy a house, is not to sell it. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has helped the House particularly on this issue.
I put this in all seriousness to the Minister, because of all the new Clauses we have dealt with today this one raises the most serious human issues. A great many people—I hope that there will be more as our standards rise—will be able to make provision for a home to which to retire. Whether they be tenants of No. 10 Downing Street or of tied cottages or of police houses, many people buy houses to which to retire. This is a serious problem for them. My own postbag has had more letters on this subject than on any other. It is a real and serious human problem that has been created by the Government.
It is a terrible indictment of either the efficiency or the goodness of heart of the Government that they accept this problem, which they have themselves created, and simply say that they cannot solve it. Another place has made a good and practical attempt to solve it. I suggest that we retain it in the Bill and—here I pick up the right hon. Gentleman's own arguments—if it is found to produce difficulties let him come forward with an Amendment in the next Session.

Mr. Crossman: It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the problem we are dealing with was created by the Bill. I can sum it up by a simple syllogism. The late Government abolished security of tenure with the Rent Act, 1957. We have been wicked enough to restore security of tenure with this Bill. And now we are being blamed for not creating means of ending security of tenure. I think that it would now be convenient to formulate my view concisely because we have argued this ad nauseam and now we need to sharpen


the issue on which we are voting. This Clause has important principles in it.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned retirement towards the end of his speech. This was interesting because by then one had almost forgotten that this was supposed to be what the Clause was about. The origin of the Clause lies in one sense in the history of the Bill. We faced the problem of whether the special case of retirement could be met. Obviously, we now do not have creeping decontrol but creeping recontrol, or regulation. In cases where certain problems arise, we have made various exceptions to full security for the tenant in certain conditions. The last Amendment I spoke to concerned the problem of owner-occupiers, and I explained why the Government did not feel entitled to go either narrower or wider than what was in the Bill.
I am afraid that the same is true on this occasion. I looked up what I said last time and the passage which refers to this came after a very moving speech by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), who asked whether it was not possible for someone who bought a house with vacant possession for his retirement and who subsequently let it to have special provision made for him. I said:
…. I come to the problem that was raised by the hon. Member for Dorset, South about retired people. This is in reference to new Clause No. 11. I have a great deal of sympathy with the aims of this Clause, and if I could find a formula for dealing with this problem I would be almost as tempted to deal with it as I would be to deal with the problem of the agricultural cottage and say that the farmer should be allowed the right to get entry to his house if he is letting it rather than leaving it empty between agricultural tenancies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1965; Vol. 715, c. 334.]
The House will observe that that is a new Clause which I shall be moving in a few minutes. I said "almost as interested". If we could get a genuine Clause, as for the Clause which we have worked out—if someone in another place could have worked out a Clause dealing with the problem of retirement, I would have seriously considered it.
But no one can pretend that this Clause deals with the problem of retirement when "retirement" does not come into it. We

tried ourselves and I know that no one has found a way to write a Clause which genuinely gives to people who want to use a house for retirement the right to go there, without giving it to thousands of people who do not want to retire. We tried and the other place tried and out of it has come a Clause which has nothing to do with retirement. It is a Clause of quite a different kind. It is a Clause which says that if a house is purchased with vacant possession at any time within the next five years, then there shall be a period when the tenant shall not have security of tenure. It means that those who purchase with vacant possession shall for a period be allowed to deny to the tenant the security which we want to give him.
There are conditions in which I could agree with that, if there were a possibility of a Clause for genuine retirement, such as the Clause we had about the manse or the Clause about the farmer with the agricultural cottage. Those were the three which I wanted. I wanted to get it for retirement as for the other two, but we have not got it for retirement. It is now admitted by another place and by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that no Clause can be drafted to provide only for those genuinely wanting to retire, in which case this is a Clause of a totally different sort. This gives the right not only to those who genuinely want to retire, but to anyone who purchases, and that is a very different Clause and bears no relation to my pledge or to the intentions in another place. This is a Clause which simply drives a great wedge into the security of tenure which we are trying to provide for the tenant.
Once again we have a very simple division in the House between those who on margin look after the tenant and those who on margin look after the owner-occupier, or in this case the landlord who wishes to be an owner-occupier after letting his house for a certain period. The Opposition hold the view that in certain conditions he should not have to fulfil the security of tenure obligations towards his tenant which we believe should normally be there. It is because no effort has been made to show that this Clause refers only to retirement and because it was thought of originally only in terms of retirement—

Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it was impossible to do as I suggested in the debate to which he has referred and limit this right to those occupying accommodation under the terms of their employment, such as policemen and firemen and so on, when there is a definite date of retirement and when accommodation has to be vacated under the terms of employment?

Mr. Crossman: All I can say is that the Clause that we are now discussing does not make any pretensions to do that. What we have to discuss is the Clause before us, and this Clause does not even try to do that. I feel that it is very unjust of the right hon. Gentleman to throw these things across. He knows perfectly well that we have tried each of the three

Division No. 274.]
AYES
[9.40 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Albu, Austen
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles


Alldritt, Walter
Floud, Bernard
Lubbock, Eric


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Foley, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McBride, Neil


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ford, Ben
MacColl, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael


Beaney, Alan
Garrett, W. E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrow, Alex
MacMillan, Malcolm


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grey, Charles
MacPherson, Malcolm


Binns, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Manuel, Archie


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Hale, Leslie
Mapp, Charles


Boyden, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Roy


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Maxwell, Robert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
Mellish, Robert


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, J. J.


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hazell, Bert
Molloy, William


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Heffer, Eric S.
Monslow, Walter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Conlan, Bernard
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Holman, Percy
Murray, Albert


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Hooson, H. E.
Neal, Harold


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Horner, John
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howie, W.
Norwood, Christopher


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ogden, Eric


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
O'Malley, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Will


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Delargy, Hugh
Jeger, George (Goole)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dell, Edmund
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Doig, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parker, John


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, Norman


Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G.


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Popplewell, Ernest


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted
Probert, Arthur


Ensor, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn

instances which he gives. We had the three examples, the farmer who wanted to lease the agricultural cottage in the intervals between its being used for an agricultural labourer; the manse, and thirdly, the retired person. We succeeded in the first two, but neither he nor I has found any solution to the problem of clearly framing a Clause dealing with retirement which would not give it to a host of other people. It is for that reason that I would like to see this Clause turned down.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment":—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 175.

Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stones, William
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.>


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Rose, Paul B.
Swingler, Stephen
Wilkins, W. A.


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Symonds, J. B.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Silkin, John (Deptford)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Skeffington, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Urwin, T. W.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Small, William
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Zilliacus, K.


Solomons, Henry
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Wallace, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Warbey, William
Mr. Alan Fitch and




Mr. Harry Gourlay.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar


Atkins, Humphrey
Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Balniel, Lord
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Batsford, Brian
Grieve, Percy
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Bingham, R. M.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Peel, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Hay, John
Pitt, Dame Edith


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Box, Donald
Hendry, Forbes
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Braine, Bernard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Roots, William


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Royle, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Sharples, Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shepherd, William


Buxton, Ronald
Iremonger, T. L.
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Cary, Sir Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Chataway, Christopher
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stainton, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kilfedder, James A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, Peter
Talbot, John E.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Lagden, Godfrey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lambton, Viscount
Teeling, Sir William


Crawley, Aidan
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Crowder, F. P.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Curran, Charles
Longbottom, Charles
van Straubenzee, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Loveys, W. H.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McLaren, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maitland, Sir John
Weatherill, Bernard


Errington, Sir Eric
Marten, Neil
Webster, David


Eyre, Reginald
Mathew, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, William


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mitchell, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gammans, Lady
Monro, Hector
Mr. Francis Pym and


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Morgan, W. G.

Clause 15.—(RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSE HELD FOR OCCUPATION BY MINISTER OF RELIGION.)

Lords Amendment No. 11: In page 10, line 34, leave out "before" and insert "not later than".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This really is a drafting Amendment which, in so far as it has any effect, improves the position from the point of view of the person living in occupation of the premises. In Clause 14, the notice had to be given

5
" .—(1) The following provisions of this section shall apply where a dwelling-house which was at any time occupied by a person under the terms of his employment as a person employed in agriculture has been let on a regulated tenancy to a person other than—



(a) a person who is or at any time was so employed by the landlord; or



(b) the widow of any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.


10
(2) If—


15
(a) not later than the commencement of the tenancy (or, if tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) the tenant has been given notice in writing that possession may be recovered under this section; and



(b) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and


20
(c) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the landlord in agriculture;



the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.


25
(3) In this section 'employed', 'employment' and 'agriculture' have the same meanings as in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 or in Scotland, the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949."

Read a Second Time.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 3, to leave out from first "person" to end of line and to insert "employed or primarily engaged".

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to take also the following Amendment to the Lords Amendment: in line 19, leave out from "or" to "in" in line 20 and insert "primarily engaged".

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an Amendment to

"not later than the commencement of the tenancy."

In Clause 15 as it left this House, it had to be given before the commencement of the tenancy. As the notice might be given in a lease, it is better to have the same provision in Clause 15 as in Clause 14. The effect is to provide a somewhat longer period in which to give notice.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B".—(RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSE HELD FOR OCCUPATION BY A PERSON EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE.)

Lords Amendment No. 12: In page 11, line 6, at end insert new Clause "B":

new Clause "B", which the Minister, I imagine, will shortly move. The new Clause is certainly an improvement on what went before, but it has one strange omission. While it covers the problem of the farm cottage, it excludes the problem of the farm house. This seems to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to be a strange omission in a Measure which is allegedly designed to assist the housing problem of the agriculture industry.

What will happen if the Minister and his colleagues do not accept our Amendment but merely give a provision which covers the farm cottage and excludes the


farmhouse? The first by-product will be seriously to hamper the much-vaunted farm amalgamation scheme, and I suspect that the Minister knows this. If at a future date farm A and farm B are amalgamated under the new scheme and the owner-occupier of farm A simply has farm B merged into his holding, he probably would not want to move from farmhouse A but might simply run the new amalgamated holding from the house which he has always occupied. The old, former occupier of farmhouse B probably retires and, if he is lucky enough, finds a house to retire to, if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues enable him to do so without being caught out on the problem of getting possession. Farmhouse B is temporarily redundant in the sense that the owner-occupier of farm A does not want it for the time being.

What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest he should do with farmhouse B? Is he just to leave it empty? Because if he lets it to a non-agricultural tenant he is completely caught out. No matter what circumstances may arise in the future, even the immediate future, no matter how unforeseen those circumstances may be, if farmhouse B is let the owner-occupier of the holding is in very great difficulty. If he has a son who gets married and he wants to take his son into partnership he cannot put him into farmhouse B. If one of his own employees, adequately housed at the moment, but with a growing family, so that he will become under-housed in two or three years' time, asks "Can you find me a bigger house?", although farmhouse B may be a suitable house, if it is let, he is completely hamstrung. So there is no alternative but for the farmer to leave farmhouse B unoccupied, empty, and, may be, deteriorating in the damp.

That is the first effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. He may say that this is hypothetical. I do not think it is, but let me give him another example, not hypothetical at all. I would invite the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to give me some advice on how I should deal with the problem at my own home. This is not hypothetical; it is actual. A farm tenant of mine died a little time ago, and I took the farm in hand last Michaelmas. The tenant's widow moved out of the farmhouse and

built herself a very nice bungalow. The farm tenant employed two men; neither of them married; and they are merely working for me now instead of the farm tenant, and they are living where they lived before. So for the moment at any rate the farmhouse is surplus to my requirements, I am simply farming the farm alongside the farm I have had in hand for many years. I do not at the moment want the farmhouse.

What am I to do with it? If I let it I am a hostage to fortune. If I let the farmhouse that will prevent me at any future date from letting the farm as a whole, because, as I suspect the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is very difficult to let a farm without a farmhouse; if I let the farmhouse that will also prevent me at any future time from selling the farm if I want to—because, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not easy to sell a farm without a farmhouse. What happens if one of the two bachelors gets married and wants accommodation? The farmhouse would be very suitable. If it is let it will not be available. So all I can do is to leave that farmhouse empty. I have no alternative.

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman another variant of the same difficulty. I have a farm foreman; he is married but has no children; instead of living in the farmhouse he prefers to live in a cottage over the way. The farmhouse is empty. I dare not let it. May I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention for one moment? I want him to give me some advice. The farmhouse is empty. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether—

Mr. Crossman: I am baffled by the hon. Gentleman. I am giving the closest attention to what he is saying. If suddenly for a moment I glance at my hon. Friend beside me that is not an insult to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is very distracting.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I had a very shrewd suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman really was not paying very much attention to the argument, and I want him to give me some advice.
If I let the farmhouse I am completely sunk, because if anything were to happen to my foreman—I sincerely hope it will


not because he is very good but he might get ill or have an accident, and sooner or later he will want to retire—I would have to replace him. I might want to replace him with a farm foreman who has a large family, and the only house available would be the farmhouse.
I am quoting my own affairs as a typical example of what can happen. I have two farmhouses, both of them empty, within a mile and a half of each other. I have no option but to leave them empty, because if I let either or both of them I am in baulk. I cannot conceivably deal with contingencies which might arise in the future if I have not got accommodation, and this would seriously hamper the running of both farms. This is what is happening with new Clause B which covers the farm cottage but which excludes the farmhouse.
I have a shrewd suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman does not really understand the omission that he has made. In another place the Government spokesman, when dealing with a comparable Amendment—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Rent Bill be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]

Orders of the Day — RENT BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I was saying that in another place the noble Lord speaking on behalf of the Government when answering a somewhat comparable Amendment said:
On the best information I can get,"—
as this is a Ministerial statement I think am in order in quoting it—
it is not a clause which would be likely to have any widespread effect …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th August, 1965; Vol. 269, c. 455.]
I can only suggest to the noble Lord in another place and to right hon. and hon. Members in this House, that it is time they got round a little, because the Clause will have a very wide effect indeed, and,

so far from helping accommodation in rural areas, what the Clause is doing is impeding and preventing the use of accommodation which otherwise would be available.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not want to detain the House for very long, but as the new Clause which is the subject of the Amendment was first raised by me in Standing Committee at col. 837—I see the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) shaking his head. I do not believe that he was a member of the Committee upstairs, so perhaps he does not know, but if he looks at col. 837 he will see that I raised the case of a farmer who, because he does not require it for the moment, lets a farm cottage to a person who is not employed in agriculture, so let us have no talk about the N.F.U. being responsible for this Amendment. I think I can legitimately claim that I was responsible for introducing it, so I am entitled to give the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) some advice about the problem he has posed, and I hope that I can save the Minister a little trouble and shorten his winding-up speech by offering this advice.
I see what the hon. Member for Windsor is driving at, that this new Clause does not cover the case where the person in the farm house is not the occupier, he is a tenant of the owner of the farm, and therefore is not covered by the new Clause. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on the scheme outlined by the Government for the amalgamation of farms, surely it is a good thing if he can take this farm into his own management and farm over a wider acreage and dispense with the subsidiary house which was required in the past because the farms were managed in smaller units?
The hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of larger units and amalgamations between farms as a means towards higher efficiency, and he said that at the present time the particular farm which is on his property is not required by him for a tenant who is farming the subsidiary unit. It is part of his large unit which he farms together with his own land, and I should have thought that the simplest thing to do was not to treat the house as being required for the purpose of farming a small acreage of land, but to


sell it off without the land. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) protests about it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not have arguments in the form of noises by hon. Members from a sitting position. If they want to intervene, there is a Parliamentary way of intervening.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene and say why he is making those noises, I am happy for him to do so. As I understand it, he is quite capable of getting up after me and making a speech on the Amendment and giving his own advice to the hon. Member for Windsor. I am sure that he will get quite a lot of advice this evening.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry if my involuntary noises of amazement at every clause of the speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) cause him difficulty. I would ask the hon. Gentleman how on earth the miserable landowner will get back his house if he needs it in the future.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Bristol, West cannot have been listening to me, because the advice that I gave his hon. Friend was that he should "flog" the house. After all, here is a valuable asset which is in the possession of his hon. Friend, and I would like the hon. Member to endorse the advice that I am giving his hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Windsor is in a fortunate position. I wish I was in the position of having a house that I could afford to leave vacant. It is rather nice to be in the position of having these doubts. He does not want the house for the moment because he is farming the land. If he wants to realise on the asset, surely the sensible thing for him to do is to make full use of it, just as anyone does who owns an asset in a business. If he does not require it for the purposes of his own business, then he can sell it, just as he would if he were an industrialist and had factory space surplus to requirements, or if he had a machine tool surplus to requirements. Why should not the same treatment be

given to a house that he does not require for the efficient management of his farm?

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for his advice. I do not think that he really knows very much about agricultural holdings. I said that I did not want the farmhouse now, but how does the hon. Member know that I might not want to let it or sell it at some future date? Would he care to rent or buy a farm where there was no farmhouse available?

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Windsor mentioned in the course of his speech that he might require to sell it at some future date. I am only suggesting to him that he might realise that possibility now. If he agrees with the policy which has been outlined by the Government about the efficiency of farming in larger units, surely he ought to continue to operate the land under his own control. He has a bigger acreage now that he has brought the farm into his own holding, and presumably he can manage it more efficiently. If that were not the case, he would have let the farm as soon as he gained vacant possession of it.
His point does not pose very great difficulty in considering the present Amendment. By limiting the terms of it to persons actually employed in agriculture, we are not in any way jeopardising the efficiency of farms, and we are not in any way hindering the operation of farms on a large scale, which is the purpose of the Government's present policy, as I understand it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's objection is a very minor one to make to what is a sensible Amendment designed to ensure that where a person has let a farm property to someone not employed in agriculture, if he wants to regain possession of it in the efficient management of his business, he can do so. To extend the Clause by an afterthought which no one thought of in Committee upstairs is absolutely typical of the Conservative Opposition. They are determined to use every possible means of delaying the Bill until the last moment, even on a trivial point.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) should seek to copyright what is a blazingly obvious


proposition to anyone engaged in agriculture while not supporting an Amendment that tries to fill out his own conception. I do not know how many fair-sized farmed there are in Orpington, but perhaps he will have in mind that it is not uncommon for a fair-sized farming business operated by one farmer to include more than one holding. The holdings may be widely separated. They may be miles apart. One may be owned by the fanner and the other leased by him. The farmer may therefore have in his legal possession more than one farmhouse. He may find that he has no residential use for one farmhouse, and the owner may wish to see it let and occupied until such time as it is required again.
I am at a loss to understand why the Government are making such heavy weather of this Amendment. It seems to me odd to include the cottage but to exclude the farmhouse, because to do so makes the Government's Amendment of only very limited use. I moved the original Amendment in this House, and although I was not on the Standing Committee I read the speech of the hon. Member for Orpington. He mentioned the problem, but I think that I am right in saying that the Minister pointed out to him that there was expected to be a later Amendment dealing with that point, and that he therefore thought that the hon. Member was not in order at that moment in the Committee. A further opportunity never came until, I think, we reached the Report stage—

Mr. Lubbock: In order to get the record right, I might say that there was not an Amendment later on the Notice Paper. The Minister informed me that there was, but it was admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary that there had been a misunderstanding, and that the Amendment to which reference had been made was not on the Notice Paper at the time.

Mr. Hill: I am trying to give the hon. Member all the credit I can, and asking him to pursue his ideas to their logical conclusion, which is to support this Amendment.
When we discussed the matter on Report I tried to treat quite equally—because I believe them to be equal—the case of the farm cottage and that of the farmhouse. I do not know how the argu-

ments there are to be separated. When he replied to the debate, the Minister accepted the principle of the Amendment. I agree that he mentioned only the tied farm cottage specifically, but as he did not say the farmhouse was to be excluded some of us thought that that meant that the general case had been accepted. Later, on Third Reading, we were trying to assist the Government by not speaking unnecessarily, and I did not seek to elucidate this point—I wish that I had. I did attempt to when the Minister came to that passage in his winding up speech on Third Reading, to intervene to ask whether, in mentioning the necessity of dealing with the farm cottage with a suitable Amendment in another place, he also intended to include the farmhouse. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was pressed for time and did not give way, so the Bill left this House with this point unresolved.
I then wrote to the Minister stressing how desirable it was to treat the farmhouses so as to enable them to be let and occupied, while not required for farming, but pointed out that it was absolutely essential that possession should be recoverable, whatever notice was provided under the contract of letting, as and when the farmhouse was required for agriculture again. At the same time both the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association were in touch with the Ministry and urging that this seemingly obvious matter should be put right so that we should avoid a tiresome anomaly.
10.15 p.m.
I wrote on 7th July. On 15th September I received a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary from which I quote:
As regards farmhouses, the Government do not feel that there is a substantial enough problem to warrant special provision in the Bill. The concession on the recovery of possession of tied farm cottages was framed to take account of the very real problems which arise in relation to these cottages. But the Government do not think that it is reasonable to extend this concession to spare farmhouses. As you may know this was discussed at Report stage in the House of Lords. … For ease of reference, I enclose copies of the Lords HANSARDS".
The Parliamentary Secretary apologised for delay in replying. I hoped that the delay was for a period of consultation, reflection and acceptance of the proposal


and was not due to indifferent administration, but when I studied the arguments put forward in another place it seemed that the Government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, rested his case on three broad grounds. First, he said that this was a special case and primarily concerned large estates. Certainly it is likely to occur on fairly large estates merely because there are more farms and a bigger prospect of farmhouses becoming spare, but it is not exclusively concerned with large estates. It may happen whenever one farmer is farming two separate holdings.
Secondly, the noble Lord expressed a good deal of sympathy for the case but said that the Bill was dealing with tied cottages and was the subject of a compromise. He indicated that he was reluctant to upset the balance of the compromise by introducing new matter despite its merits. There is no rational basis for this objection because this proposal does not affect the National Union of Agricultural Workers, except possibly indirectly for its members' benefit. It is possible that if the Amendment were accepted a spare farmhouse, not previously used by an employed worker in agriculture, might be wanted back to house not a separate farmer but an employee, owing to some increase in the expansion of farm production such as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor suggested might well happen.
The third reason that was put forward in another place by the Government was that this problem was more closely related to a Bill about agriculture than to this Rent Bill. That is incorrect. This Bill alone is cutting across normal contractual arrangements in agriculture. I do not think it fair for the Government to try to have it both ways. At an earlier stage of the Bill we complained that it was not a suitable vehicle for dealing with tied cottage problems. If the Government are to bring agriculture into this Bill they must be prepared to consider in detail important agricultural issues.
On 21st September I returned to the charge and on 6th October the Parliamentary Secretary repeated in his letter:
As I said, we did not think it reasonable to extend these special provisions on recovery of possession to cover farmhouses: our purpose in the Bill was to deal with the agricultural

tied cottage as such, and this we have done.
Tonight I have an interest to declare, because during the Recess I, too, have got into a similar situation as that recounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), in that I am one of the trustees of a farm from which the tenant retired on 10th October. The trustees have decided to keep the land in hand because it wants a lot doing to it over the next few years. Therefore, a perfectly good farmhouse is spare. It will certainly be needed some time in the future, but we cannot say when.
Already we have had requests to let it. Presumably the demand will build up. The first request I had was from a salesman in an agricultural service industry who wanted to operate his business from the locality in which the farm is situated. I had to tell him that until the Government's policy is clearer we cannot part with possession of the farmhouse, although we ourselves have temporarily no use for it. Then, on further consideration of the Government's Amendment, I had to tell him that he in any case would have to be ruled out because of the unfortunate circumstance that 10 years ago he was employed by me as a farm worker until he went off on his own. Yet he probably approached me merely because I owe him a lot of good will and I would like to oblige him. However, these provisions make it impossible. This illustrates a certain disadvantage in provisions 1(a) and 1(b) in the Government's Amendment, in that, though they may seek to protect certain individuals in possession—the ex-worker and the widow—they may in general act against the workers' interests, in so far as the Clause may deter owners and farmers from allowing such persons into possession of a cottage if they become completely protected tenants.
I remain baffled by the trouble over this one simple point. I ask myself whether it stems from the Government's ignorance of what happens in the countryside. Can it be that Ministers or their advisers are so urban-minded that they are not able to learn? I think not, because the correspondence, the debate in another place and, indeed, the Minister's own words here, have shown


that he has expressed marked support on the question of the cottage and sympathy has been expressed for the parallel case of the farmhouse. The Government do not seem to be prepared to do anything to correct it. This can arise from one of two reasons—either from sheer doctrinaire obstinacy, or from a careless disregard for the quality and detail of legislation.
It seems that Labour Governments do not learn. When I purchased my farm I took over plans for the reconditioning of two cottages. The plans were in being. The then Labour Government suddenly rejected the Hobhouse Report on Rural Housing and stopped such work. Those cottages fell into slow decay and became known as "The Bevan Memorial". I fear that if the Clause is not amended we shall have similar empty, decaying old farmhouses as a string of Crossman memorials. I therefore beg the Minister even at this late hour to accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment and improve his Bill and its subsequent administration.

Mr. John Wells: I wish to be brief and to put to the Minister the particular problems of the horticultural section of the agricultural industry. Horticulture faces some particular difficulties because holdings tend to be smaller, which is the point on which Lord Mitchison spoke some rubbish in another place when he said that the section was comprised of predominantly larger estates.
Throughout the horticultural industry there has been a great degree of amalgamation and alteration. Houses classified as farmhouses—and which will be viewed, as a result of the Bill, as farmhouses—may become temporarily vacant, as several of my hon. Friends have indicated. In the horticultural industry, in the position in which it finds itself today, the labour force has been cut back radically and holdings have been completely altered in their nature from the housing point of view.
The whole tenor and attitude of horticulturists is one of expediency and advance, because in the past few years there has been this run-down in the labour force. This does not mean that this trend will continue. The industry is that section of agriculture most alive to technical

change. It may be that our labour force will increase in the years to come. Naturally, growers will want their workers to occupy the best available properties. As my hon. Friends have indicated, where there are really good farmhouses, it is desirable that the workers should have the best property that is readily available. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind, even at this late hour.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I rise merely to ask one question which must be put to the Government. Is it their policy, as it would appear to be the Liberal Party's policy—and I gave the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) notice that I would be raising this matter, although he has not seen fit to be in his place—that temporarily surplus farmhouses should be sold off? If that is their policy, what will happen to farmhouses which are needed on a parcel of land at a later stage?
Obviously planning permission will be sought to build farmhouses and it will be virtually impossible to resist that permission. I mention this because a racket could exist in farm housing, for farmhouses could be built and then got rid of. The Minister seems to look amazed. He knows, from the correspondence we have had, that some strange things can happen in the way of planning permissions in agriculture. The countryside could be damaged by unnecessary buildings being erected. This is a loophole which the Government are creating by which a large number of extra houses might be built but which would otherwise not be needed if the right hon. Gentleman had more sense about this part of the Bill.

Mr. Crossman: I have been somewhat disappointed that we have not been able to make faster progress. However, I will do my best to deal with the Amendment, although I must to some extent deal with the substantive Clause so that hon. Members may understand the full implications of the Amendment. I hope that I will not have to repeat all these remarks when we come to the substantive Clause.
The House will recall that the Clause is the result of a specific pledge which I gave having had negotiations with the N.F.U. and the National Union of Agricultural Workers on the subject of tied


cottages. As far as I can remember, at no point in those negotiations was anything raised other than the issue of farmworkers and tied cottages, although I agree that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), who spoke at great length, did write me a letter, but that did not concern what we were discussing at the time. That was not a matter to which we had given very much thought in formulating the Clause, but I would be perfectly prepared to consider it if it is practicable.
The House should understand just what it is that we have agreed to do and what it means. We have made a perfectly clear Clause to deal with the problem of the agricultural cottage—though I will refer to it as "house" because the size of the house is immaterial. A farmhouse may be an agricultural worker's house as much as a cottage. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) told me about his foreman living in a farmhouse, and it was part of his conditions of employment that he lived there, the fact that he was in a farmhouse would have made no difference and this Clause would have applied.

10.30 p.m.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The Minister has got it wrong.

Mr. Crossman: I misunderstood. I thought the story was a little difficult to follow at certain points. I thought it was about a foreman who was living in a farmhouse.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I knew that the right hon. Gentleman had not understood and, in fact, he was not listening. The foreman in question is living in an agricultural cottage. The farmhouse is empty.

Mr. Crossman: The point I was making was that, if he had been living in the farmhouse, the problem would not have occurred. The question the hon. Gentleman raised was whether we would extend a special Clause dealing with service tenancies to people who are not service tenants. That is it, is it not? That is what we are asked to do, to say that we will now give the same rights to a farmer vis-à-vis a tenant who is an employee and a tenant who is not in a

service occupancy, that is, we will let him get hold of his house as easily as he should get hold of the tied cottage if it has been let to somebody else in the interval.
The situation envisaged is this. A farmer does not need his tied cottage for the time being. He wants to let it, because it would otherwise be vacant. That is clear, is it not? The cottage is a cottage given as a condition of employment, and therefore we have in the Clause provisions which precisely cover it and which carefully make sure that only if it is a genuine tied cottage, only if it genuinely being let outside the industry, and only if it is genuinely to be given back to the farm, an exception is made. In such circumstances, the farmer can get repossession of the tied cottage from the tenant, and the tenant will not have the protection of the courts by the test of greater hardship or the rest.
That is clear. That is the Clause we have all agreed on. Now, I am asked to add to that the further statement that we will extend it outside the area of the employee in the tied cottage to the house or building on the farm which is not occupied by an employee but by someone else who is a tenant. It might be a shop, a factory or anything, presumably. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Intrinsically, yes, because the Clause makes sense only in terms of the agricultural tied cottage, in the same way as we have another Clause dealing with the manse. We have to be precise in our definitions, and it is no good pretending that a farmhouse on an ordinary tenancy bears any resemblance in terms of the Clause to the subject of the Clause, which is the special problem of the agricultural tied cottage which will be vacant if it is not occupied by one of the farmer's employees.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: With respect, the Minister is approaching this far too much from the standpoint of the business of letting property. The essential point about both the tied cottage and the farmhouse is that they are buildings, admittedly residential, which are vital to the operation of the farm business. In the farmhouse is the headquarters of the man who is running the business. He is not an employee. He is the farmer, presumably self-employed, and, by definition, in that farmhouse is the headquarters and


office of the business. Therefore, from the point of view of agriculture, the two stand together. If anything, the farmhouse is, perhaps, the more important.

Mr. Crossman: That does not answer the point. The point we are dealing with arises on a Clause which met the pledge we gave to deal with the problem of the agricultural tied cottage in the peculiar conditions put to me by the N.F.U. and the farm workers, who said that many thousands of agricultural tied cottages were lying vacant because the farmers did not dare to let them when they were not let for farm labour for fear of not being able to get repossession. It was for this reason that the Clause was drafted.
Now, hon. Members say that they are not content with my doing what I promised, and they want me to do something rather different, extending the provisions of the Clause to farmhouses which are not tenanted by employees, apparently, because if they were tenanted by employees there would be no problem. If it is an employee, the whole Clause works. If it is not, it is not fair to say that we have not fulfilled our pledge. Nobody dreamed of doing it in that way. I gather that the case that the hon. Gentleman imagines is that a farmer buys another farm and has a surplus farmhouse on his hands. I am asked to say that in that case I will make the rule which applied to the tied cottage apply to the surplus farmhouse as well.
All I can say is that this is a totally different proposition and not the proposition that I negotiated with the National Farmers' Union, and I have had no demand for it from the National Farmers' Union or the other side of the industry. The hon. Member brought the subject up in his speech, and he also wrote to me, but I am clear that we have done exactly what we said we would do. I believe that what we have done is right and that we were right to do it.
I do not see that we can extend the provision at all easily in this way without laying ourselves open to having to extend it to other buildings on the farm. Why should this not be extended to other buildings? Why only to the farmhouse? If a man has a farmhouse to spare, what he does with it is up to him. He should put an employee in. If he puts his foreman into the farmhouse it will be under an

ordinary agricultural tenancy. What any normal person would do would be to find a way of putting an employee in, and then he can sublet in the ordinary way.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman has not met all the possibilities. The farmer might die and the farms might have to revert to two units. The extra farmhouse would then be required.

Mr. Crossman: Of course the Clause does not deal with everything. No Clause can. It deals with precisely the class of cases that we promised to deal with. This was put to me by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and the unions. They asked me to work out a Clause dealing with employees and employees' houses. This has been done. I am not prepared to accept an Amendment which greatly widens the issue and takes us right outside the precision of this Clause.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which has cleared up in my mind, and, I hope, in the mind of other hon. Members, the reason why he is being so obstinate about this.
I want to make clear that I do not take issue with him for not fulfilling the pledge which he has given. It is only right to say that I am grateful to him for introducing the actual words in the new Clause. This fulfils what he pledged. I do not dispute that. I do not dispute—I do not know—that this issue that we are raising, which is a matter of substance, was perhaps not discussed in the negotiations with the National Farmers' Union and others. But I am sure that he would be the first to admit that this is a subject about which we have been talking almost since last November when the Protection from Eviction Bill was going through the House, and it has been recurring ever since at every stage when we have talked about these matters.
The case that my hon. Friends have put forward with great cogency is a pure matter of straight logic. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has done what he said he would do concerning the farmhouse and the tied cottage. If the farmer wants to let it for a short period he should be able to regain possession of the cottage for the purpose of using it for somebody who will work on the farm. We say—


many examples have been given—that one cannot make a distinction between a farmhouse, no matter what size it is, and a farm tied dwelling.
The right hon. Gentleman said that all one has to do is to put a farm worker into the house. It may be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) suggested, that at the particular moment this is not convenient and that the parties are quite happy where they are and in the accommodation that they have, and, therefore, rather than leave the house empty, it is much better and more suitable to let it on a short-term basis. Then, when required in changed circumstances, perhaps when the farm structure changes, the house should be able to be used again for agricultural purposes.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at our words, which would not widen the provision out of all proportion. We merely seek to add the words "or primarily engaged". I am sure that the Minister wishes to be reasonable and if so he must concede that he is arguing on a very narrow point of difference between a farm house and a tied cottage.
In these days one cannot tell what use these houses may be put to. A house may be used for an expanding production unit at some future date. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) referred to horticulture and its particular problems, whereby a house may be needed again for an employee. The case put forward by my hon. Friends demonstrates the need for our Amendment and the difficulties and confusion that might arise without it.
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman can validly argue that at no time in future will a big unit be split up. A large unit may have to be split

Division No. 275.
AYES
[10.44 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boyden, James
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Albu, Austen
Bradley, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard


Alldritt, Walter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Dalyell, Tam


Bacon, Miss Alice,
Buchanan, Richard
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Binns, John
Coleman, Donald
Delargy, Hugh


Bishop, E. S.
Conlan, Bernard
Dell, Edmund


Boardman, H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Dempsey, James


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

up because of death duties, or with the son rushing to occupy a small portion, that farm house would be the right and proper place for him to live. There is no reason why, before that happens, it should not be let on a short-term tenancy. All we ask is that the owner should be able to get repossession for agricultural purposes.

The points made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) did not help the debate. I suggest that before he intervenes again in this matter he should consult any of his hon. Friends who are experts on farming. It is also a pity that none of the Agricultural Ministers are here for this important matter.

Mr. Lubbock: Why does not the hon. Gentleman make some effort to answer my argument instead of merely making sarcastic remarks?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Because the hon. Gentleman did not know what he was talking about.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reconsider this matter. We are not asking him to go wide of the provision but merely to include words which will be necessary for the good working of agricultural land. If he excludes these words he will raise many problems for the future, with the result that many houses which could be let on a short-term basis will not be let and so, will deteriorate. I am sure he does not wish to see that situation. The Amendment is in the best interests of agriculture which he and the House have at heart and wish to see promoted.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 159.

Doig, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Popplewell, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur


Duffy, Dr A. E. P.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


English, Michael
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rose, Paul B.


Ennals, David
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ensor, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Floud, Bernard
Lubbock, Eric
Skeffington, Arthur


Foley, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McBride, Neil
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, J.
Small, William


Ford, Ben
MacColl, James
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Garrett, W. E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Swain, Thomas


Garrow, Alex
MacMillan, Malcolm
Symonds, J. B.


Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grey, Charles
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Mapp, Charles
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mason, Roy
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hale, Leslie
Maxwell, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mellish, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wallace, Georgo


Hart, Mrs, Judith
Molloy, William
Warbey, William


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Hazell, Bert
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
White, Mrs. Eitene


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Murray, Albert
Whitlock, William


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Holman, Percy
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Horner, John
Norwood, Christopher
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, Will
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Padley, Walter
Winterbottom, R. E.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Woof, Robert


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur



Jeger, George (Goole)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. William Howie and


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Brian O'Malley.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.





NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Astor, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Porlsmth, W.)
Goodhew, Victor


Atkins, Humphrey
Cooke, Robert
Grant, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Cooper, A. E.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Balniel, Lord
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gresham Cooke, R.


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Bell, Ronald
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crawley, Aidan
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hastings, Stephen


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Curran, Charles
Hay, John


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bingham, R. M.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hendry, Forbes


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hiley, Joseph


Black, Sir Cyril
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, J. E. B. (S Norfolk)


Blaker, Peter
Eden, Sir John
Hirst, Geoffrey


Box, Donald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Errington, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter


Braine, Bernard
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Farr, John
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Fisher, Nigel
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Buck, Antony
Foster, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Buxton, Ronald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Carlisle, Mark
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kilfedder, James A.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gammans, Lady
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Chataway, Christopher
Gibson-Watt, David
Kirk, Peter







Kitson, Timothy
Neave, Airey
Talbot, John E.


Lagden, Godfrey
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Catheart)


Lambton, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Teeling, Sir William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Litchfield, Capt. John
Peel, John
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Longbottom, Charles
Pitt, Dame Edith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Longden, Gilbert
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Loveys, W. H.
Prior, J. M. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Francis
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


McNair-Wilton, Patrick
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maitland, Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wall, Patrick


Marten, Neil
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Mathew, Robert
Roots, William
Weatherill, Bernard


Maude, Angus
Royle, Anthony
Webster, David


Mawby, Ray
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Whitelaw, William


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sharples, Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shepherd, William
Wolrige-Gordon Patrick


Mitchell, David
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Woodnutt, Mark


Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stanley, Hn. Richard



Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Murton, Oscar
Summers, Sir Spencer
Mr. Martin MacLarea and




Mr. Jasper More.

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I will not make a speech, because I think that on the previous Amendment we said everything which needs to be said on the new Clause. This is the Clause which we promised to insert. I gather that although it does not include all that the Opposition want, everything in it is such as they do want.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 18.—(DUTY OF LANDLORD TO SUPPLY STATEMENT OF RENT UNDER PREVIOUS TENANCY.)

Lords Amendment No. 15: In page 13, line 3, leave out "fourteen" and insert "twenty-one".

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment exemplifies two virtues of the present Government: first, their ability to fulfil their promises; and secondly, the incredibly good-natured way in which we have approached the whole Bill. The House will recollect that on Report my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave an assurance that although the Government did not quite accept all the arguments put forward by the Opposition in this regard, nevertheless we would consider the question of whether the period should be 14 or 28 days.
It was argued by the Opposition that 28 days would be the best arrangement. The Government, for their part, cited Section 11 of the Rent Act, 1920, as being their defence of the figure of 14 days. It was agreed that we should split the difference, and we are glad that in another place the Government spokesman so moved the Amendment. I suggest that in the circumstances it is a fair proposition. We are fulfilling our promise to the House, on the one hand, and arriving at a reasonable compromise, on the other hand.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20.—(OPERATION OF PART II.)

Lords Amendment No. 16: In page 13, line 43, at end insert
and, in England and Wales, for different parts of a registration area.

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that the Amendment will commend itself to the House. It is simply to ensure that Part II of the Bill can be introduced more speedily than was possible under the form which we had in the original Bill. I will give just one example. If we find, as well we might, that in a large county there is one area where we cannot find the right rent officer, we would not like to hold up the introduction of the machinery of rent officers and rent assessment committees in the rest of the county. The Amendment provides the requisite degree of flexibility and I am sure that it will commend itself to the Opposition.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I should like briefly to put a point concerning the Amendment on which I should like clarification from the Minister. Under the Amendment, it is suggested that we should be able to bring this arrangement into operation for different parts of a registration area in England and Wales. It would appear that there is no similar provision for Scotland, and I should like to know why.
This is not a foolish argument. Many of our registration areas in Scotland, where registration areas are the large burghs or the counties including small burghs in each of them, can be substantial in size. Not only that, but communications in these areas can be difficult. To that extent, equally serious problems could be involved as could arise in counties in England and Wales. In certain cases, the problems that arise could be much more serious. I suggest, therefore, that it is wrong to bring forward the Amendment without also covering the position in Scotland, where the problems could be the same or even greater.
I should like the Minister to explain why Scotland was singled out for not getting the consideration which is being given to England and Wales. This is


no laughing matter. If the proposed advantage to England and Wales is a serious one, why should not a similar advantage come to Scotland? Will the Minister explain why the Government appear to regard the problems which are dealt with in the Amendment as being less serious in Scotland when, in some cases, they could be more serious? I hope that I will get a short but serious answer from the Minister.

11.0 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I will try to give a very short answer which I hope will be considered serious. If the hon. Member will read Clause 23, and recall the debate we had in Committee, which I am sure he has now read, he will see that the organisation of the rent officer service in Scotland is quite different from that in England. It is more centralised in Scotland. The Secretary of State is taking power which is quite exceptional compared with that of the Minister of Housing, because of this high centralisation, and the fact that the distribution of the houses affected is rather unusual, in the context of the geography of Scotland, where there is not the scattering of houses affected as there is in the larger area of England with its large population, compared with ours in Scotland, where we have a comparatively small population concentrated in a very small part: I think 80 per cent. of us are living in central Scotland.
Considering the geography of the matter, and the situation of the houses affected, it was considered that it would not be wise to have sub-division of this kind. The Secretary of State has, in anticipation, already taken advice about this, with a view to the future. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in fact this suggestion from another place is a very welcome one, but I can assure him that we do not need it in Scotland. If we did, I can assure him that the present Secretary of State would have pressed very much for a similar provision for Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with my assurance that we do not need this, on two grounds, first, that of geography, and secondly, that we have the rent officer service centralised in Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21.—(REGISTRATION AREAS AND RENT OFFICERS IN ENGLAND AND WALES.)

Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 14, line 19, after "the" insert "Minister with the consent of the".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
In the Bill as it left the Commons the provision was that the remuneration allowances should be at scales approved by the Treasury. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 provides, however, in this form—that the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, fixes them. It seems tidier to have the same principle here. It does not alter the fact that the Treasury will have to approve the scales, but it does leave the Minister responsible for fixing them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 26, after "shall" insert "allocate or".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It would be convenient to discuss at the same time the next Lords Amendment, in page 14, line 27, after "and" insert
shall confer on the clerk the duty".
In some registration areas, where there are several rent officers, each may have responsibility for keeping a register in a sub-area. Normally, the responsibility would be on the clerk of the authority to allocate the work between rent officers, but there may be cases of this kind where there will be a scheme divided in several areas, where it may be easier and quicker to do it in the scheme, and this simply provides for the alternative, to enable that course to be adopted.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 20: In page 14, line 35, at end insert:
'and for the purposes of the National Insurance Act 1965 and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 they shall be deemed to be in that employment under a contract of service".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The problem is here that the rent officers will not be employed by local authorities. They will be statutory officers. Therefore, special provision has to be made about their insurance and their industrial injury benefits. This can be done by Regulations made by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and the original idea was that that was how it would be done. However, as we want to get rent officers appointed as quickly as possible, it may be quicker to do it in this way in this Bill. It will save the necessity of waiting for the Regulations to be made by the Minister, and it will safeguard the rent officers from any difficulties about their insurance position.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause.—(RESTRICTION ON RE-ENTRY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.)

Lords Amendment No. 22: In page 18, line 35, at end insert new Clause "C":
C. Where any premises are let as a dwelling on a lease which is subject to a right of re-entry or forfeiture it shall not be lawful to enforce that right otherwise than by proceedings in the court while any person is lawfully residing in the premises or part of them.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to both sides of the House. It provides in effect that there can be no forfeiture of a lease except on the order of a court. A lease generally contains a provision that if a tenant breaks any of the covenants, including the covenant to pay rent, the landlord may re-enter the premises and the lease thereupon comes to an end by forfeiture. In that case the tenant is entitled to go to the court for relief, and for this reason it is very unusual for a landlord to seek to bring a lease to an end by forfeiture otherwise than by proceedings in court, but it is well established that he may do so if he chooses. He resorts to what is sometimes described as self-help to enter premises for this purpose, and if he does so the position under the existing law is that the lease comes to an end, subject to the right of a tenant to apply to the court for relief, so he can go to the court in any event.
The effect of the new Clause will be to make it unlawful for a landlord to re-enter to take possession of premises in right of forfeiture, and under the terms of Clause 29(1) any landlord who seeks to do so will be guilty of an offence. The new Clause is consistent with the principle underlying the Bill, namely, that a landlord should not have the right to evict a tenant without first obtaining an order of the court.
It may well be that the position is a little obscure, that under Clause 29 as it stands it will still be lawful for a landlord to re-enter on forfeiture without going to the court, but that is open to argument, and the new Clause clears up the issue which might otherwise be left open to doubt.
There have, of course, been very few cases in recent years where landlords have exercised their right of re-entry on forfeiture, but at any rate we want to clear up the position. We want to make it quite clear that there can be no re-entry and there can be no forfeiture without an order of the court. I hope that that is a principle which will commend itself to both sides of the House.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am not quite happy about the question of re-entry. This is a point which arose during the summer months after the Bill was sent to another place.
There are in this country a number of old people's homes run by charitable and religious organisations. The usual practice in these homes is that rooms are let furnished to old people who pay a part of their pension to the home. In many instances an old person says to the charitable trust, "May I bring by furniture with me, and in that event may I have an unfurnished room?" The charity then allows the tenant to take an unfurnished room.
Presumably, the tenant then becomes a regulated tenant under the Bill. But the tenant, being an old person, may become ill and go to hospital, or may become an awkward case and insist on all sorts of rights which the charitable body does not want to give. The usual practice at present is that the trust will re-enter the room and make arrangements for the tenant to go elsewhere and put another old person into that room.
In such instances, it seems to me that the charity should have the right of re-entry into rooms which are unfurnished, and I would invite the Solicitor-General to say a word about that, because there are instances in my constituency of Roman Catholic homes and others which are very well run, where the landlords require the right to re-enter if a tenant gets very awkward or becomes a geriatric case and ought to go to hospital. I should be obliged if the Solicitor-General could tell us what are the rights of the landlord and tenant in such a case.

Mr. Cole: I have no wish to ask the Solicitor-General conundrums at this late hour, but could he tell us what is the position about re-entry in the case of residential accommodation which is included in a business lease? There seems to be a loophole in new Clause C, which is to follow Clause 29.

Mr. Graham Page: Although we on this side agree with the principle embodied in the Clause, it is not quite as simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman explained it. It refers to "any premises" Under this part of the Bill, it will be unlawful to harass any occupier, and that comes in the present Clause 29. However, in dealing with the lawful taking of possession, this part of the Bill is restricted to occupation which follows something other than a protected tenancy. In Clause 30, the basic protection that one must go to the court in order to get possession applies to those people who are in occupation after a tenancy which is not a protected tenancy. The reason for that is that, if they follow a protected tenancy, in general, they have their rights under the Rent Act, the Agriculture Act or any of those Measures mentioned in Clause 32.
New Clause C which we are now discussing seems to be quite contradictory to the present Clause 32. Surely new Clause C should have been restricted to those who have no rights under the Rent Act, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, or under the Agriculture Act; otherwise, what we are saying in the new Clause is that to exercise a right of re-entry or a right of forfeiture is unlawful and is harassment under Clause 29. That, surely, is not right. The normal right

of re-entry or right of forfeiture comes from a common form clause included in tenancy agreements and leases, that the landlord shall have a right to re-enter or forfeit a lease on breach of covenant, on arrears of rent, if the tenant is bankrupt or makes composition with his creditors. This can apply to controlled, non-controlled, regulated, or non-regulated tenancies; and if applying to the controlled or regulated tenancies, then the occupier has his rights under the Rent Act or whatever other legislation—and there is other legislation—applies. He has that protection.
11.15 p.m.
If this is intended to apply to all tenancies outside regulation, then we say that it would seem to be an unreasonable application. It is not harassment to apply the rights of the landlord for re-entry or forfeiture. Secondly, a point which the Solicitor-General did not touch upon was that concerned with the words "lawfully residing" in the penultimate line of this Amendment. What do they mean in this context? I would suggest that it is a phrase simply inviting litigation. If a right of entry has arisen, then the person occupying the premises, if not the lessee or the assignee of the original lessee, will be unlawfully residing in them. This phrase, left undefined as it is in the Amendment, can only, as I have said, invite litigation.

The Solicitor-General: Three points have been raised and, by leave of the House, I should like to reply.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) spoke of the case of old persons living in homes run by a charity and tenants of a charity. I can only say to him that it would seem to me very unlikely that any difficulty would arise here because what we are concerned with are premises let on a lease and subject to re-entry on forfeiture. I cannot imagine old persons in such homes as the hon. Gentleman has in mind being party to a lease subject to re-entry on forfeiture; but, supposing they were under an agreement between themselves and the charity, there is no reason why the old people should not be protected just as much as anybody else, nor why the charity should not go to the courts and not merely re-enter the rooms.
So far as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) is concerned, the answer is much the same because, before this Clause can operate, one has to have a lease subject to re-entry or forfeiture and, if there is express provision for that, if does not make any difference whether they are classified as business or residential premises. This Clause operates where there is this particular right and this right of forfeiture cannot be exercised without going to the court.
I think that the same answer would apply to the points made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He referred to persons "lawfully residing" in the premises, or part of the premises. The answer here is simply that that applies to anyone except a trespasser. Of course, if one tenant went out and somebody else simply marched in, the postion would be different; but I should have thought it would be a position which would rarely, if ever arise. A person lawfully in occupation of the premises, either as the original tenant or in succession to him, or even as a licensee, would be covered. In any case, where there is in the lease a right of re-entry or forfeiture, we say that that right can be exercised only after application to the court; we are not taking away any right.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House have had experience of these matters. I suppose that in recent months we have all had constituents coming to us who have been greatly alarmed because they have been threatened with eviction from their houses. The Protection from Eviction Act, passed earlier in the Session, has been a tremendous protection. Since the passing of that Measure it has not been possible to put people out without application to a court. That principle was established earlier in the Session, and it is one that we wish permanently to enshrine in our law. I therefore invite the House to agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, I would point out that he has not dealt with the point that the Clause does not seem to tie in with the later Clause which accepts protected tenancies, though not those who have regulated tenancies, although the tenancy which may include a clause for

the right of re-entry or forfeiture, will already be protected under the Rent Acts. Is this Clause meant to cover them as well as other tenants? Is it meant to give a sort of double protection to the regulated tenant, although he is protected under the application of the Rent Acts?

The Solicitor-General: Whether he has a single protection or a double protection, we intend that the protection should be there. I have only had the question put to me just now, but I would say that it is unnecessary in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. But this Clause is absolutely clear. It refers to a lease in which there is the right of re-entry or forfeiture, and we say that that cannot in future be exercised except on application to a court.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30.—(PROHIBITION OF EVICTION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.)

Lords Amendment No. 23: In page 19, line 11, at end insert:
() The preceding provisions of this section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply where the owner's right to recover possession arises on the death of the tenant under a statutory tenancy.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "tenant under a statutory tenancy" and to insert:
second successor as defined in section 13 of this Act".
I believe that the intention of the Lords Amendment was to take into account the person who follows the second successor on a regulated tenancy. Under Clause 13 we have now extended to the second successor the right to succeed to a controlled or regulated tenancy. In the earlier stages of the Bill, I put the case of the father, mother and daughter living together, the father being the tenant. I am here assuming a regulated tenancy. The father dies, and because the Rent Acts apply to this regulated tenancy the mother will be the successor. Under the existing law, and prior to this Bill taking effect, the mother will be the last person entitled; that is to say, if she were to die the daughter would not be able to succeed. The law at the moment does not recognise a second successor to a controlled or a regulated


tenancy. Under Clause 13 the daughter is now entitled to succeed.
Then we go one step further. If someone else is in occupation when the daughter dies, he is following on a protected tenancy. Therefore, he is excluded from the provisions of Clause 30, because only the person who is not following on after the protected tenancy is protected by Clause 30. Nor would that successor to the second successor be covered by the Rent Acts, so that person is left without any protection.
I suggested at an earlier stage, before we had the second successor, that protection should be given to him. I now suggest that the third successor should be given that protection, but not in the form of the Lords Amendment because it goes too far. It gives a right of protection to anyone in occupation after the death of a statutory tenant. Surely they are already protected under the Rent Acts—exeryone except this third successor. This is the only person to whom we have to give a special protection. As the Clause stands, it is quite in conflict with Clause 32.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Does this not deal with an entirely different matter? Clause 14 deals with the question of protected tenants. This deals with what is called the basic protection of no eviction without a court order of tenants not protected under the Acts.

Mr. Page: I said that the second successor under the existing law is neither protected under the Bill nor under the existing Rent Acts. In Clause 13 the third successor is left without protection under the Rent Acts and under the Bill. Anyone following a statutory tenant has protection under the Rent Acts. It is only the third successor we need to protect. It is to that person that the Clause should be restricted. Use of the phrase "statutory tenant" means nothing at all. A person who follows a statutory tenant will be protected under the Rent Acts. If this Clause is confined to the person who needs protection it is in order, but as it stands it is contradictory to Clause 32.

Mr. MacColl: I am not sure of the extent of the difference between the hon.

Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and myself because I think that the Lords Amendment which I shall invite the House to support is wide enough to cover the point the hon. Member has raised and to cover other people who may be affected.
The first person who dies and has been protected under the Rent Acts may well be a statutory tenant. Unless there is transmission of his statutory tenancy to his wife, there will be no protection for other people in the house unless the Lords Amendment is adopted. The Lords Amendment covers two points. First, basic protection is given where the statutory tenant was the original statutory tenant, or one who obtained the first transmission and has not a widow or other member of the family to succeed him. Secondly, the other people lawfully in the house would receive basic protection.
The second case to which the hon. Member referred is where the statutory tenant has obtained his tenancy by a second transmission and any person residing with him at the date of his death would get protection. The Amendment from another place meets the case which the hon. Member put forward.

Question, That "tenant under a statutory tenancy" stand part of the Lords Amendment, put and agreed to.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that I have said all that need be said on this Amendment. As I have explained, the Amendment was made in another place to meet the difficulties worrying the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and myself.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES.)

Lords Amendment No. 24: In page 19, line 45, at end insert:
() whether the occupier has found employment other than as an agricultural worker,

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I have thought about the Amendment a good deal. I would say straight away that there are certainly two sides to the


question, and the Amendment states one of them. When we were moving the Protection from Eviction Bill I made it very clear that we on this side of the House recognised the side of the question which the Amendment emphasises. I said clearly that we did not want to have a law which deliberately weighted things in favour of people so that they could take an agricultural cottage and then use their position in order to go into industry.
Since I said that, we have passed that Bill and a good deal has been achieved. We have this Measure before us. I worked very hard on a compromise Clause which I think achieved a fair balance between the requirements of the farmer and the requirements of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. There are three parts to that Clause. One states the requirement to consider the needs of the industry, one states the requirement to consider the alternative accommodation for the farm worker and the third studies the balance of hardship between the two sides. We have a Clause which is as fair as it possibly can be. I do not deny that it is opposed by both the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the N.F.U., who do not like it at all, but it is as fair as any human being can get. The difficulty is that if we take this particular aspect in the Amendment and write it into the Bill, we shall upset the balance which we have created without achieving any very powerful purpose.
There is one other thought which I should like to leave with the House. Perhaps I should declare an interest in the matter before dealing with it, as I have an interest in cottages of this kind. About 20,000 farm workers leave the industry each year. There is a great migration from farming into industry, and that migration takes place partly by people voluntarily going from farming and partly by the farmer efficiently cutting back his staff and saying, "I can do with fewer men".
There is, therefore, a constant tension within the industry as people move out of it. We need this; we want the industry to be more efficient and to produce more per man, and we welcome the constant dwindling of manpower combined with increased productivity.
But my hon. Friends concerned on the trade union side will agree that if

we are to have that constant stream out of the industry, we must protect the men during the awkward period of transition. As I said at the beginning, I strongly dislike the person who takes a cottage on false pretences, but, on the other hand, there are people who are compelled by circumstances to move into industry, perhaps by losing their jobs because a farmer finds them redundant, and these people are entitled to the protection of the court.
I emphasise that throughout the Clause and our thinking about the agricultural worker we have thought it right—with some support from hon. Members opposite—to leave to the court's discretion how much stay of execution should be allowed. There is only one difference between the standing of the farm worker under the Bill and the standing of any other kind of service tenant. Other service tenants have a basic right, but normally the court is limited to four or six weeks as the maximum which it can give. For farm workers we say to the court, "You have your own discretion. You can give less than four weeks. You can say that a man is a swindling person who does not deserve to stay in the cottage if you are convinced that he got it under false pretences." The court is entitled to give longer than six weeks if it thinks that cases really deserve that treatment.
That means that the instructions one gives to the court are important and that they should balance fairly. I believe that the instructions as drafted give a fair balance and that if we added this fourth instruction—which is what the Amendment is designed to do—it would create a dangerous situation. It would create a grave suspicion in the trade unions about why this has been put in.
The court will have to take into account the fact that although there are cases where men swindle the farmer in terms of cottages, they are rare, and it is much commoner for farmers rightly to cut their staff. However, in such circumstances the men must be given perhaps two or three months in which to find alternative accommodation.
I want to make it clear that I am in some difficulty over this issue. We as a party have an election pledge to guarantee alternative accommodation to farm workers. The more I looked at this the


more I realised that we could not fulfil that guarantee in terms of writing it into the Bill, for if we had written it in and said that the local authority must give alternative accommodation to evicted farm workers, we should have been urging farmers to evict the farm workers they liked the best so as to ensure them council houses. We found, therefore, that we could not write that guarantee into the Bill.
I have told the farming industry that I am convinced that it does not make any difference in reality. The number of evictions is small and reducing. There is a basic willingness to let old grudges die, and our hope is that we can strike a balance by which it will die away and by which the tied cottage will no longer be a memory of wickedness.
We shall not increase that good spirit in the industry if the proposed words are inserted in the Measure—coming from another place at the last moment. I believe that we have the balance right, that we got it right in the House of Commons, and therefore I must urge the House to resist the Amendment.

Mr. J. B. Godber: The Minister dealt with the Amendment with care and moderation. I listened carefully to what he said and the proposal before us, coming from another place, is less strong than the one put forward by my hon. Friends earlier. For that reason we had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have accepted it, particularly in view of what was said in another place by the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend, who seemed to be evenly balanced in his view of the proposal and who said that he had sympathy for those involved and instanced the ways in which harm could be done.
As I understand it, the Minister based his case on the three criteria which arise in subsection (5). However, these criteria are not binding on the court and I would not have thought that to have included the additional criterion—where an occupier has found employment in something other than agriculture—would have been unreasonable. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he cannot accept the additional criterion, for it would have gone a long way towards meeting cases which can arise.
I do not want to over-emphasise the possible position or say that a great many cases will arise. However, where there is an attempt to swindle the farmer—and that phrase was used in another place—by obtaining employment with him simply to get the house, then leaving the job thereafter, the additional category proposed in the Amendment would enable the courts more clearly to look at the provision and inquire into all the circumstances involved. All that is asked is that the courts should inquire into the circumstances, and, were they to do so, the very arguments which the Minister has adduced would show that, in cases in which a farmer was seeking to get rid of additional labour, this particular provision would have no merit and no binding force on the courts. Where, on the other hand, a man had been unfair in his dealings—there can be such cases—the courts would take note of it.
This would have been a very effective way of safeguarding against the undoubted loophole here through which a man could take advantage of the conditions laid down. I still think that the Minister ought to give further thought to it and consider the arguments put in the other place and, briefly, by me tonight. I shall not labour the point. Time is getting on and I do not wish to deal with the question at length. Any arguments justifying keeping a man in the cottage would be available to the court, but, by incorporating this proposed additional provision, one would give the court the facility to take account of the case in which a man had taken unfair advantage. It was for that reason that the Amendment was carried in the other place, and it is for that reason that, even now, I ask the Minister to consider it further.
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the balance between the two sides. This would not disturb any balance. As he himself said, even with his balance he has not had great success in getting the happy acquiescence of both sides, and the Amendment would not greatly change it. I ask him to consider the matter further and incorporate this provision which would have good effect in preventing the possibility of abuse which he has himself acknowledged and which is evident to the whole House.

Mr. Lubbock: This Amendment follows one which was discussed in Committee, having been moved by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). It would require the court, when considering whether to exercise its power to suspend execution of an order for possession, to consider the present employment status of the tenant. On that occasion in Committee, I voted with the hon. Member for Dorset, South, not so much because of his persuasive arguments as because I had earlier moved an Amendment on the subject of agricultural tenancies covering the case of the tied cottage temporarily occupied by a person not engaged in agriculture but which the farmer required for occupation by one of his own employees. The Minister persuaded me to withdraw my Amendment on the mistaken statement that it was covered by a later Amendment of his own.
I found this out the following day, after going through the Paper, and the Parliamentary Secretary was unable to give me a satisfactory explanation of what had occurred. This was my reason for voting against the Government on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dorset, South. I am glad that my point has been covered in another place and is to be incorporated in the Bill, but at the same time, I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, South that the farmer should be adequately protected against the person who gets into a farm cottage by false pretence, as it were, by pretending to be an agricultural worker, and who then, at the first opportunity, leaves the farmer's employment and takes a much better paid job in the nearest town.
On reflection, I think that the Clause as it stands would allow this kind of circumstance to be taken fully into account by the court, which would almost automatically grant an order for possession in such a case. Clause 31(5) provides that the court shall
have regard to all the circumstances".
Sharp practice by a person who pretended to be a farm worker in order to get an agricultural tenancy would certainly be a most material circumstance.
11.45 p.m.
Also, in Clause 31(5, b and c), we find the words:
whether the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on

of any agricultural operations would be seriously prejudiced
and
whether greater hardship would be caused by the suspension of the execution of the order than by its execution without suspension or further suspension.
I suggest that if a person has fraudulently pretended to be an agricultural worker and has then gone off and taken a well-paid job in the nearest town, it is likely to have jeopardised the efficiency of the agricultural operations of the farm and that those two subsections would then be brought into operation and could be used by the farmer in gaining possession.
On the other hand, there may well be cases where a farm tenant leaves the employment of the farmer for a legitimate reason, because the farmer is a bad employer or because the farmer no longer requires his services, and I agree with the Minister that in that case the tenant would be entitled to the basic protection and the court should have the power to suspend the execution of an order for possession. It is impossible to cover every eventuality, and I think that on balance it is better not to tie the court up too much but to leave it with the discretion which is already contained in the wording of the Bill.
I emphasise that neither the National Farmers' Union nor the National Union of Agricultural Workers is entirely satisfied with the protection given by the Clause. As the Minister said, the agricultural workers in particular consider that it falls short of what they might have expected from the Labour Party manifesto. But it is a very difficult matter on which to strike a balance, and I think that an attempt has been made to be fair to both sides, and I doubt whether there would be more than a handful of cases where possession might be granted with this Amendment and not without it.
I remind the House what the Minister said in his Second Reading speech on 5th July at col. 1199 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He was quoting a number of cases which the National Union of Agricultural Workers had drawn to his attention of evictions in the last twelve months, and he said that they were not able to collect more than 20 and that, therefore, this was a declining practice. I join


with the Minister in hoping that this old sore which has plagued the agricultural industry will now be healed and that we can go ahead with good will on both sides of the industry.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has advised the House against the Lords Amendment. The House is fully aware of my interest in the National Union of Agricultural Workers.
When new Clauses A and B were introduced they created a considerable amount of resentment among farm workers throughout the land. Great play has been made about the few isolated cases where men go to work for a farmer for the purpose of securing accommodation and then immediately go elsewhere to get higher earnings. But in by far the majority of cases the reason why men occupying tied cottages seek employment outside the agricultural industry is that for some purpose or other the employment is terminated by the farmer. Often a farmer's son leaves school and comes to work on the farm, and the farmer will tell a man that now that his son is working on the farm he cannot keep both of them and the man will have to go.
So the man looks for another job. He is not allowed to be unemployed. He would not be entitled to unemployment benefit if he failed to accept any form of employment that came in his direction. It may not be a job on a farm. Circumstances may force him to go into another form of employment. It would be prejudicial to him to make this further Amendment.
As my right hon. Friend rightly said, this Clause has not received the approval of the workers and this Amendment would without doubt stir up even greater animosity by farm workers against the Government on the Clause. In the first four months of 1965, over 80 cases were defended in the courts by the union. In no other industry in the country have so many men to be defended over the occupation of their homes. The Protection from Eviction Act has not solved the problem. This Bill will not abolish the tied cottage. Any extension of the considerations to be used by the judges would

be deplored by my union and the farm workers.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 33.—(THE COURT.)

Lords Amendment No. 25: In page 21, line 10, leave out from "enforce" to "or" in line 11 and insert:
a lessor's right of re-entry or forfeiture".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 22, to insert new Clause C.

Mr. Graham Page: An applicant under new Clause C can apply to exercise a right of re-entry or forfeiture in respect even of a regulated tenancy, I understand. Does this Amendment mean that if a tenancy agreement in a regulated tenancy contains a right of re-entry or forfeiture a possession order can be made by the High Court?

The Solicitor-General: By leave of the House, my reply to the hon. Gentleman is that a possession order can be made by the court—not necessarily the High Court—wherever there is in that lease a right of re-entry or forfeiture and not, of course, in any other case.

Mr. Graham Page: By leave of the House, may I ask why not in the High Court? The Clause says:
Nothing in this Part of the Act shall affect the jurisdiction of the High Court in proceedings to enforce the right of possession on the forfeiture …
Surely that means that any application can be made to the High Court for a possession order if there is a right of re-entry written into the tenancy agreement.

The Solicitor-General: Again by leave of the House, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said it did not make any difference which court it might be, whether it be the High Court or the county court. Where there is a right of re-entry or forfeiture written into the lease, the effect of the earlier Amendment and of this one is that the right cannot be exercised except by leave of the appropriate court.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 26: In page 21, line 20, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
(d) section 13 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This arises, happily, out of consolidation, about which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) knows more than I do. The old Land Clauses Acts have been consolidated into the Compulsory Purchase Act whilst this Bill has been going through Parliament and this Amendment brings the Bill up to date accordingly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37.—(FURNISHED HOUSES.)

Lords Amendment No. 27: In page 22, line 33, leave out from "London" to end of line 34, and insert:
£350, in the Special Review Areas in England and Wales (as defined by section 17(1)(a) and (2), section 25 and the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act 1958) £200, and elsewhere in Great Britain £150;

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This rather follows the discussion which we had many hours ago about the problem of what should be the appropriate rateable values for unfurnished tenancies. It would not be wise to have different levels of rateable values for furnished and unfurnished tenancies. The Government who passed the 1957 Rent Act, when there were lower rateable value limits, kept them in step. Obviously, if that is not done, there is created a situation whereby people moving from one to the other can affect security of tenure and rents. Therefore, the wise thing to do, having accepted the principle for unfurnished tenancies, is to accept this as being consequential upon that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we had some discussion some seven or eight hours ago on the related but distinct question of what should be the rateable values in respect of unfurnished premises. I agree with him that it is probably unfruitful to go over the serious and important arguments which were deployed on that occasion, but I would not like to leave him with the impression that we accept

that furnished figures must automatically follow the unfurnished.
The hon. Gentleman cited a precedent, but it was not a precedent which perhaps appeals to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, considering the things which they say about that piece of benevolent and wise legislation, the Act of 1957. We are here dealing with furnished premises and if furnished and unfurnished are taken at the same rateable value, it is self-evident that there will be higher rents for furnished. Consequently, the Government's decision to take control up to £400 a year rateable value in London provides the most absurd consequences in respect of furnished lettings.
We are here dealing with furnished flats with rateable values of £400 a year which may be let at up to £1,000 a year. We are getting beyond the middle income groups to which so much eloquence was directed earlier. We are getting into the luxury class and this is perhaps literally the reductio ad absurdum of the Minister's proposals.
On that I can only restate our position. We believe that it is unwise and foolish to place on what, for all the Minister's optimism, will be a very heavily burdened administrative system the burden of dealing with disputes affecting people paying these rents and with incomes of this sort. We are quite sure that there is no social justification for doing this and we are quite certain that the effect will be to reduce the quantity of the accommodation, in this case, furnished accommodation, provided to rent. It is very little consolation to a potential tenant to know that he would be able to get premises on reasonable terms if only there were any premises for him to get. But this will be the effect of what the Minister is doing throughout the Bill. It seems to us to be a case of extreme absurdity to carry regulation, in London especially, to include furnished premises with a rateable value of £400 a year carrying the kind of rents which premises of this kind carry in the West End of London.
None of the old disputes and arguments which we have had about rent control bear much on this. This is a case of doctrinaire enthusiasm for restriction and control carried to so extreme a point as perhaps to illuminate very vividly the unfortunate mental attitude which the Government adopt on this issue.
It is useless to expect at this hour that we shall convert the Government to reasonable sanity on this matter. We shall have to leave events to demonstrate to it the truth of what we say. All we are concerned with is to make it clear that

Division No. 276.]
AYES
[12 m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Albu, Austen
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Norwood, Christopher


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William
Ogden, Eric


Alldritt, Walter
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Armstrong, Ernest
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Oswald, Thomas


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hazell, Bert
Padley, Walter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Heffer, Eric S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Binns, John
Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman


Bishop, E. S.
Horner, John
Perry, Ernest G.


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Popplewell, Ernest


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Boyden, James
Howie, W.
Rees, Merlyn


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Richard, Ivor


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Buchanan, Richard
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rose, Paul B.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Small, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Swain, Thomas


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Symonds, J. B.


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Doig, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tinn, James


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Tomney, Frank


Dunnett, Jack
McCann, J.
Tuck, Raphael


Edelman, Maurice
MacColl, James
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin


English, Michael
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ennals, David
MacMillan, Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ensor, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wallace, George


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mapp, Charles
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Floud, Bernard
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foley, Maurice
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mellish, Robert
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ford, Ben
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Garrow, Alex
Molloy, William
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grey, Charles
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Astor, John
Balniel, Lord


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey
Batsford, Brian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

we have no part in this by recording our disapproval in the Lobby.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 153.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Onslow, Cranley


Bingham, R. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Hay, John
Peel, John


Box, Donald
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hendry, Forbes
Pitt, Dame Edith


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Braine, Bernard
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior, J. M. L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hirst, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Roots, William


Buck, Antony
Hornby, Richard
Royle, Anthony


Buxton, Ronald
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John (Bromley)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shepherd, William


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kilfedder, James A.
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kitson, Timothy
Talbot, John E.


Costain, A. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crawley, Aidan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Teeling, Sir William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Curran, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longbottom, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveys, W. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Wall, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Farr, John
Mathew, Robert
Ward, Dame Irene


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Mawby, Ray
Webster, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Foster, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, William


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gammans, Lady
Mitchell, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
More, Jasper
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. Francis Pym and


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Dudley Smith.

Lords Amendment No. 28: In page 23, line 33, leave out subsection (6).

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think we might discuss the next Lords Amendment with this one, in page 24, line 26, at end insert:
() No right to occupy a house or part of a house for a holiday shall be treated for the purposes of the Act of 1946 as a right to occupy it as a residence.
This Lords Amendment is to clear up a difficulty which arose over my accepting an Amendment on Report here. Probably, I would have been wise not to have accepted it in the form in which it appeared. The proposal was that the 1946 Act, that is, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, should be amended so that the word "ordinary" should appear before the word "residence" in the definition.
The object of that, which was described by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) as "the seaside landladies charter", was to deal with what had been a theme of many of our debates in Committee, the difficulties which were thought to arise in landladies' getting rid of people in winter lettings before the summer lettings—in time for the holiday lettings in the summer. The complaint was that they would have to go, possibly, to a tribunal, and that there would be delay. Therefore, the suggestion was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby that we should put in the word "ordinary" so as to make it clear that people who already had another home would not come within the protection of the 1946 Act.
When this was looked at in the cold light of day it was clear that this would go further than was, I think, the intention of anyone at the time the Amendment was passed. It would, for example,


cover students' digs, and I think it would be very unwise indeed to exempt young people who, in some cases, can be subject to exploitation and do require some protection. I do not think anybody's idea was that they should not have protection. The whole object was to find a way in which landladies who let holiday lettings should be given free access to their own rooms.
Therefore, in another place, after some discussion, it was agreed to make this alteration. This does quite clearly and specifically refer to holidays, and it does make it precisely what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby said: it does make it a seaside landladies' charter. Therefore I hope the House will agree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am not entirely satisfied with what the Minister has said. I wish to question the Government on this matter of the persons other than the seaside landladies, that is, the landladies who take in students in a university town. A great number of these people are very worried, and they were very worried when the Bill was produced, and what the Minister has said now does not entirely satisfy me. He is suggesting by the latter of these two Lords Amendments that seaside landladies will be looked after, but he is taking subsection (6) out of the Clause, which was going to help my landladies. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) nodding his assent. I much value his support in this, and I assume that we are right. If we did not accept Lords Amendment No. 28, and left in subsection (6), my landladies would be protected, but under the Government's proposals they would not be.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Surely these students are not tenants in a sense?

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Cooke: That is for the Government to declare beyond any doubt, because I have had many letters about this and I am not satisfied that the Government are aware of this problem, or that they care very much about it. The Minister certainly seemed to think that they should not be included.
A student may be in lodgings. Perhaps he wants to get married and the landlady is very helpful about that and says, "You

can come here when you are married". He and his wife might both be students. They might start having children and the landlady might again be most helpful about that. [Laughter.] Landladies are most versatile and helpful people, but they should not be allowed to be exploited by people by virtue of some squalid Act of Parliament. Many of the Acts passed by this Government are somewhat squalid in part, and this Bill may have the unfortunate effect of enabling unscrupulous people to go on presuming on the kindness of their landladies indefinitely and become protected tenants.
The other point, and this is a very valid one, is that there are many people in Bristol—and no one can challenge this—who are unwilling to let students into their houses as lodgers because they fear that they will be stuck with them for good, and I think that the Minister ought to explain to me and to the House how these landladies are to be protected if we agree to Lords Amendment No. 28.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I am dissatisfied with the Government's stand on this issue. Just over an hour ago the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the Government as one which kept their promises. If he had known at that time what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was going to say on this issue, I think that he might have phrased that sentence differently.
There is no doubt that on Report the Parliamentary Secretary declared in explicit terms that he accepted the insertion of subsection (6) which had been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). When the Bill was considered in another place the Government reversed their position on that and put forward an Amendment to delete the subsection and to add what is now Lords Amendment No. 29. I welcome this Amendment, so far as it goes, as I have spoken a number of times about the importance of safeguarding holiday lettings, but that is only part of the question.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby introduced subsection (6) he referred to it as a landladies' charter, but he made it clear that it did not refer only to holiday lettings. He made it clear that it applied to other types of tenancy as well. Indeed, it was hardly necessary for him to do that, because it


should have been, and was, clear to anybody reading the Amendment that it must extend to other types of letting.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, and as the Parliamentary Secretary himself said, one such category is students, but the effect is not to leave all students out of protection. It is to leave out only those students who have an ordinary residence elsewhere.
When the Government accepted the Amendment embodied in subsection (6), they were acting entirely consistently with the broad approach that they have taken to the Bill. They have made it quite clear in discussions that the object of the Bill is to safeguard tenants in their homes, and that is very nearly the same thing as tenants in their ordinary residences. The test of ordinary residence is a perfectly practical and workable test for the courts to apply.
On the Report stage, the hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment without any ifs or buts. He did not say: "I accept the object of exempting holiday lettings, and I will produce words to meet it." He said: "We will accept the Amendment." I hope that the Minister himself has looked at the words that his hon. Friend used in accepting the Amendment.
The argument in another place turned on what exactly was in the hon. Gentleman's mind in accepting the Amendment, and, after a long and fairly inconclusive discussion, the other place agreed to leave it to this House to decide what was intended and agreed upon here. For the purposes of our debate, what should be relevant is not what was in the hon. Gentleman's mind. What should be relevant is what he said. He was quite explicit. But if we are to consider what was in his mind, there are two possibilities. I was not clear from what he said in his few remarks which of those alternatives was true. One alternative is that he did not realise what he was doing in accepting the Amendment.
I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench would pay attention to the point that I am trying to make. It is fair to ask, if he did not realise what he was doing in accepting the Amendment, why not? He says that when he came to look at it in the

cold light of day, he realised that it did something else. But had he not looked at it before, and had he not had the advice of his very competent officials on it? The answer is that he should have known what he was doing. If we have reached the point where one of the functions of the Opposition is to make sure in future that the Government realise what they are doing, our debates will take even longer than they do already.
The other alternative is that he did realise what he was doing, but that he has had second thoughts. As I say, to accept the word "ordinary" was perfectly consistent with the attitude that the Government have taken, and I hope that they will reconsider their position.
We have had many cases recently of the Government having second thoughts, but most of the time they have been second thoughts about their own election promises, and many of us think that they are good second thoughts compared with their promises. But if they are to start having second thoughts about Amendments proposed by the Opposition which have been accepted by the Government, our procedure will become even more complicated.
I have made it clear already that the present Amendment is in a special category. It is not one to which the other place is attaching weight. It is one on which the other place has left it to this House to try and sort out what was intended and agreed when it was considered on Report. My view is that there is no doubt at all what was intended and agreed at that time.

Mr. Hendry: I ask the Government to reconsider their attitude from the point of view of the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), who spoke about students' lodgings. The question was raised whether students' lodgings were lettings. As the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland well knows, in Scottish university towns the practice has grown up of landladies letting premises to students in term time not in the form of lodgings but in exactly the same way as they let premises in the summer period to holiday visitors. I have a great many letters from landladies in at least three Scottish university cities where this practice is common; in Edinburgh, St. Andrew's, and Aberdeen, and these ladies are concerned about this


particular subsection. This is most important to these ladies in these cities and I would ask the Government, who I think are trying to avoid hardship and injustice, to remember these estimable ladies doing this business of public concern as part of their livelihood.

Mr. Carlisle: I shall be very brief, but I recall that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said earlier that this would cover other lettings than seaside landladies' lettings, and, during the Committee stage, said that he accepted it as the landladies' charter. Could he now say if it would cover the type of case which I have in mind? During the Committee stage two points were made about holiday lettings. There may be the case in the middle of August of a person staying on and ruining another holiday booking; but there is also the case of a house let for two or three months outside the holiday period to a person who, instead of leaving at, say, the beginning of May, stays on and so affects the bookings of people still to come.
It is rather surprising that these words should be used in view of all the comments which have been made earlier; for if one looks at the proposed new subsection it is stated that occupation of a house or part of a house for a holiday shall not
… be treated for the purpose of the Act of 1946 as a right to occupy it as a residence.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that this covers the case where somebody takes a holiday house, as such, but not for a holiday but for some other purpose? Let us say, an artist who takes a house in Cornwall, or an author who says, "I will take a 'holiday house' but not for the purposes of a holiday". Does this proposed subsection meet the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)? I ask that because, unless it is shown that the house is taken for the purposes of a holiday, would the tenant have the security under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act?
This Amendment, I suggest, meets only half the problem. It does not meet the point of a letting to somebody who arrives for other than a holiday.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I want to emphasise what my hon. Friend has just said, because it is a point worrying

people in my constituency and in other parts of Cornwall. I do not contemplate difficulties about the person who stays after his holiday booking, but it is normal practice for holiday bungalows to be let during the winter months at a much lower rent than in the summer holiday period; and, what the owners are afraid of is that the person who takes on such a place will stay and spoil the letting of the summer period.
I am not clear from what has been said as to whether the Amendment from the other place will cover this point or not. Not only in my own constituency, but in other parts of Cornwall, people rightly say they should have reasonable opportunities for letting in the summer months. Widows and other people of limited means often own these bungalows as investments and they are willing to let them at low rents during the winter providing they can get a decent, reasonable, rent during the summer. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is the position under this Amendment?

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: It is quite preposterous that an Amendment that was willingly accepted in this House, without even allowing the Opposition an opportunity to put on the record arguments in favour of it—

Mr. Crossman: After the hon. Gentleman had finished his speech.

Mr. Page: My colleagues behind me might have wished to put further arguments on the record to explain the Amendment fully. Instead, it is set aside by the Government in another place. As a result, our intentions with regard to it, and particularly my own intentions, suffered a sort of psychiatric examination in another place in absentia. Had it been carried by a Division in this House against the Government it would have been quite a different matter; one might then have expected that in another place they would have tried to reverse that decision. But it was accepted here, and it is shocking that the Government should in another place remove it, and then come back here and seek to justify that action.
As I understand it, the Government want to remove the subsection in order to give protection to students. That is the only argument put forward in favour of removing a subsection which the Government accepted in this House in the


earlier stages. Are students protected now? Do they get the protection of the 1946 Act? Are they resident? Have they been given a contract to occupy premises as residents? That is the basis of the protection under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946; that there is a contract to occupy premises as the residence.
I know that the phrase to be "in residence" has a special meaning in the universities, and does not mean living in lodgings outside a college. Are we to apply that sort of rule here? Is it really the intention of the Government to permit a student who, perhaps, has finished his university career—perhaps has even been sent down—to go to the furnished houses rent tribunal and demand security of tenure? Is that the intention? The student is to be given the right—this is what the Government want to do, we are told, by removing this subsection—to go to the furnished houses rent tribunal when he has finished his university career or has been sent down by the university, and claim security of tenure. That seems to be the only argument put forward in favour of removing this subsection.
This was a perfectly simple way of correcting the 1946 Act, and making certain that it did only what the Minister said it did. The Minister assured us in Committee that lettings like this were not lettings for the purpose of residence

"D.—(1) Where a person who has occupied a dwelling as a residence (in this section referred to as the owner-occupier) has, by virtue of a contract to which the Act of 1946 applies, granted the right to occupy the dwelling to another person and—


(a) he has given notice in writing to that person, at or before the time when the right was granted (or, if it was granted before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) that he is the owner-occupier within the meaning of this section; and


(b) if the dwelling is part of a house, he does not occupy any other part of the house as his residence;


section 5 of the Act of 1946 and section 11 of the Act of 1949 shall not apply to a notice to quit the dwelling, if at the time the notice is to take effect the dwelling is required as a residence for the owner-occupier or any member of his family who resided with him when he last occupied the dwelling as a residence.


(2) In this section 'the Act of 1946' means the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946; and the Act of 1949' means the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949.


(3) In the application of this section to Scotland for any reference to the Act of 1946 or section 5 thereof there shall be substituted respectively a reference to the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act 1943 and to that Act as read with section 17(7) of the Act of 1949."


Read a Second time.

—I do not have his words in front of me, so I may be paraphrasing them. He assured us that those who occupied rooms when they had an ordinary residence which elsewhere would not be protected by the 1946 Act. There are those students, and that is their position. Now, it is suggested that the protection can be given to the student by removing the subsection.

I very much doubt whether the Government will achieve their object by this removal. Were the subsection left in the Bill, it would make perfectly clear that anybody taking premises, and entering into a contract to occupy premises as residents when they had an ordinary residence elsewhere should not be able to claim the benefit of the 1946 Act, go to the rent tribunal and get security of tenure or get the rent lowered.

This is a case where the Government should stand by what they did in an earlier stage of the Bill and not try to correct what they think was their mistake but what in fact was a very wise decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause "D".—(NOTICE TO QUIT FURNISHED HOUSE LET BY OWNER-OCCUPIER.)

Lords Amendment No. 30: In page 24, line 47, at end insert new Clause D.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out lines 10 to 12.
The new Clause is similar to the Clause relating to unfurnished dwellings when the owner-occupier lets for a specific period and, having occupied the premises himself, gives notice that he will require to reoccupy at the end of the tenancy. In the case of furnished dwellings, the owner-occupier, in order to obtain the benefit of the Clause, to claim possession without going to the court to do so, would have to show the following conditions: that he has occupied the dwelling as a residence, that after that he let the premises to another person, that he has given that other person notice that he is the owner-occupier and, when he requires to return, that he requires it as a residence for himself or any member of his family, and finally—a condition to which the Amendment refers—that he does not occupy any other part of the house as his residence. He is precluded from taking any advantage of this Clause if he is asking for possession of part of the house when he is in occupation of the rest of the house.
I cannot see why an owner-occupier should be precluded from this Clause in those circumstances. To put a very simple, and I think obvious, case, suppose that there is a father and mother and a teen-age family living with them in the house. The family grows up and the father and mother do not need as much accommodation as the whole house now that the family has grown up and left. Assume that the daughter has gone to university and has then done a year or two in V.S.O. Then she marries. This would be an obvious occasion to allow the daughter with her husband to go back and live in that part of the house which is surplus to the requirements of the father and mother since the family has grown up, but they will be precluded from getting back that other part if they have let it in the meantime. They will not be able to take advantage of this Clause. I see no reason why that condition should be in this Clause. It is a case in which an owner-occupier is occupying a part of a house where he should be given the right to obtain the other part for the purposes of himself or his family.
In my example, it would be a member of the family who had been residing with him at the time that he was the

owner-occupier of the whole house, and it fits his condition perfectly. It is a member of the family, a person who has been occupying the house with him, and he will have given notice to the person to whom he let part of the house that he is the owner-occupier and that he wants it back. This is no hardship on the person to whom part of the house has been let. He will have the notice, and he will know very well that at some time or another the owner-occupier may require possession again for the purpose of himself or his family. He should not be precluded from freely getting that possession back again merely because he is occupying a part of the house.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I think that this Amendment from the Lords is a thoroughly bad Amendment, but still less do I like the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).
In discussing the question of furnished lettings on both this and previous Amendments one aspect of the matter has been forgotten: the tenant of the furnished dwelling has no automatic right of security. It can be said that very few tenants of furnished lettings have the right to security. It applies only to those who have been before a tribunal; after they have asked for, and usually obtained, a reduction in a rent which was excessive, the tribunal gives them security for six months, and under this Bill 12 months. The question of security is purely ancillary to the question of fair rents, and it was introduced for that reason. If the tribunal had not the right at its discretion to give the tenant security, then no tenant would ever go to the tribunal because he would be turned out the next day. That is why this purely discretionary right has been given to the tenant.
If the new Clause were introduced it would allow landlords in a very large number of cases to drive a coach and four through the 1946 Act. No tenant in those circumstances would go to a tribunal to seek a reduction of his rent even if his rent were grossly excessive, because it would do him no good. The effect of the Lords Amendment and the hon. Member's Amendment would be to make the procedure nugatory; the tenant would get his reduction in rent but it would be no benefit to him because the


next day, without the protection of Section 5 of the 1946 Act, he would be turned out.
I therefore hope that the House will decisively reject the Amendment. This is not a question of an absolute right to security, as some hon. Members seem to think from what they have said during earlier debates; it is a purely discretionary right exercised by the tribunal, and in the great majority of cases it is applied only after the tenant has secured a reduction of an exorbitant rent. It is to protect the tenant against the exorbitant rent that this discretionary right to security is given. I think that it ought to be maintained, and I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. MacColl: I agree half way with my hon. Friend in that I hope that the House will reject the Amendment to the Lords Amendment. However, I ask the House to accept the Lords Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Order Paper.
I appreciate the point about the effect on furnished lettings, but I remind the House that the kind of case with which this is dealing is where there has been, or is likely to be, a fixed-term letting. Where there has been such a letting there is no power to extend the period. There is power in the tribunal to fix the rent, but there is no power to extend the letting beyond the fixed term. Thus, the difference made by the proposal is not that it takes away that power but more that it gives certainty to the owner-occupier of getting back into the premises.
This is, to some extent, the converse of the case of Clause 14, which deals with the owner-occupier of unfurnished premises. It is to deal with the case where the owner-occupier who has been in the house, who moves out of it, and who wants to come back at the end of his service or tour or whatever it might be. It would, therefore, be out of keeping with that intention, which concerns Clause 14 as well as new Clause D, that a person should just simply move from one part of the house to another or that he should be occupying another part of the house. That is not the idea at all. The additional words are not needed in Clause 14 because that Clause refers to

… a person who has occupied a dwelling-house … has let the dwelling-house …
whereas here we have a dwelling as a residence and not a dwelling-house. It is possible, therefore, to have more than one dwelling in a dwelling-house for the purposes of the 1946 Act.
What my hon. Friend said would be a right criticism if we were going as far as the Amendment to the Lords Amendment because that would be altering the whole balance of security of tenure in the case of a furnished letting. We are here dealing with the narrow point of the owner-occupier wanting to go back into his own home after he has let it. We thought at one stage that the fixed-term letting was enough of a protection. In deference to the views of people who thought that something more specific should be put in the Bill, the Amendment was tabled in another place.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not quite follow the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reasoning behind his suggestion that the Amendment to the Lords Amendment should not be accepted. It does not follow automatically, as he seemed to think, that because someone has retained a small part of the house in his occupation he should not have the benefits of the Clause. Why is it to be confined to someone who has gone away altogether, as opposed to someone who has needed to retain only a small part of the house for his own occupation? Why is complete absence necessary?
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he did not make out a case. I take his point about the different circumstances of Clause 14 and I do not quarrel with him about that, but I suggest that it is unreasonable, having decided, and rightly so, to accept the view taken in another place that this kind of protection should be given to the owner of premises let furnished, that it is not given to someone who has retained an odd bedroom in the house. That does not seem justified, nor has it yet been explained.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We have already discussed the question of the family raised by the second Amendment to this Lords Amendment. I shall put it formally if the Opposition wish to divide on it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Mr. Speaker.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39.—(MORTGAGES OF DWELLING-HOUSES TO WHICH RENT ACTS APPLY.)

Lords Amendment No. 31: In page 25, line 22, after "Act" insert
and the tenancy is binding on the mortgagee".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The mortgagor has only a limited power, which is conferred upon him by Section 99 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, to grant tenancies of mortgaged properties which are bindig on the mortgagee. That power may be cut down, it may be extended, or it may be completely withdrawn by agreement between the parties. It would be most unjust to allow a mortgagor who has granted a regulated tenancy of mortgaged property in breach of the terms of his mortgage agreement, or, perhaps, in excess of his powers under Section 99 of the 1925 Act, to take advantage of his own wrong doing in order to claim relief under Clause 39.
The Amendment would preclude such a practice by providing that the relief shall be available only where the mortgaged property is subject to a regulated tenancy which is binding on the mortgagee. This is plainly fair and just, and I commend the Amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 32: In page 25, line 28, at end insert:
() the mortgagor is not in breach of his covenants (the covenant for the repayment of the principal money being disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph unless it provides for repayment by instalments); and".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment raises a somewhat technical point. It is a point raised by the Building Societies Association, which, while the Bill was passing through this House, represented that the power given should not be extended to a case in which a mortgagor is in breach of his obligations under the mortgage. But it is customary to include in mortgage deeds a covenant

by the mortgagor to repay the principal money after a short period, usually six months. This is really a formality. The mortgagee does not expect the mortgagor to comply with the covenant to repay the money after six months. In most cases, indeed, he would be extremely disconcerted if the mortgagor were to do so, and the whole purpose contemplated by the parties at the time of the mortgage would be defeated.
The purpose of this provision made in the ordinary mortgage deed for repayment is purely technical. Once the mortgage money has become due, say, at the end of six months, the mortgagee has power to sell under the Law of Property Act, 1925, and also the right to sue on the personal covenant arises once the period has expired and repayment has become due. Therefore, the mortgagee is then in a position to exercise concurrent remedies.
Normally, the mortgagor will be in default under the covenant to repay the principal money, but at the time when the mortgage was entered into it was contemplated by both parties that he would be in default. I submit that the mortgagor ought not to be barred from relief simply on that account, just because of something which was in contemplation by both parties when the mortgage was entered into.
But the position is different in the building society type of mortgage which provides for repayment by instalments. This type of covenant for the repayment of the principal money is not put in for technical reasons but is one with which the mortgagor is actually expected to comply. It is to meet that state of affairs that this somewhat technical Amendment has been put forward in another place, and I ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that the House is very grateful to the Solicitor-General for his clear exposition of the Amendment. The Amendment, like the other Amendment and some which were moved in relation to the Clause in this House, shows clearly that the Clause was not thought out when it was first drafted. It came before us in the first stages in a rather peculiar state. I think that it is in its right form now.
I would merely stress that it applies only to mortgages created before the commencement of this Act. It deals


only with the effect of the Bill when it becomes an Act on existing mortgages so that unfairness shall not arise out of the effect of the Bill when it becomes an Act on existing deeds.
The mortgagor obviously should not have the benefit of the Clause if he is in breach of his covenants, whether it be a letting of the property as dealt with in the previous Amendment or whether it be a breach of any of the other covenants in the mortgage, but, as the Solicitor-General has rightly pointed out, there is a covenant which is frequently included in mortgages, that for repayment, which has to be in merely to give rise to certain legal rights at a certain date and it is not meant to be carried out as a covenant at all unless it is a covenant for repayment by instalments.
There is one form of mortgage for repayment by instalments which does not seem to be covered by this provision, and that is not the building society type but the copy of the building society type frequently used by private lenders. A covenant for the payment of the full principal is there, but if the mortgagor chooses to pay by instalments the mortgagee undertakes to accept by instalments. I suppose that in that case the mortgagor would not be in breach if he does not choose to pay by instalments. So the permissive instalment mortgage is not dealt with in this Clause, quite rightly, I think. It is the building society type of mortgage which should be dealt with as an exception in the Clause. I think it is adequately dealt with, and I am grateful to the Government for introducing the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 33: In page 27, line 14, at end insert:
() for any reference to a covenant there shall be substituted a reference to an agreement or stipulation".

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
To validate the Amendment which we have just agreed to in Scottish terms, a term equivalent to the English legal term "covenant" would have to be used, and, accordingly, the Amendment seeks to apply an appropriate Scottish phrase, which is "an agreement or stipulation". I hope that hon. Members will concur in that.

Mr. Hendry: This is another illustration of the dreadful business of the Government failing to find a Scottish Law Officer to advise them on the terms which they use. Here we have a proposed Amendment to the Statute which is absolutely nonsense. To suggest that a reference to "an agreement or stipulation" is a translation of "a covenant" is absolutely meaningless and shows a complete ignorance of how these matters are dealt with in Scottish conveyancing.
1.0 a.m.
I do not blame the Under-Secretary of State. He is not a lawyer. Obviously, those who advise him have little experience of this sort of thing either. It is shameful that we have not a Scottish lawyer on the Treasury Bench to answer the point. My understanding is that a covenant involves some active step on the part of the person taking it. On the other hand, the two alleged Scottish words that it is proposed to substitute are completely different.
What happens is that the person binds and obliges himself. It is not a matter of agreement. It is a solemn undertaking. If the hon. Gentleman were to suggest that we substitute the words "obligation or undertaking" we would get something like precision. But to suggest that "agreement" is a proper translation is utter nonsense. Any stipulation would surely be made by the person who is being granted it and not by the person granting it.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman withdraw this Amendment and seek proper legal advice, resting on the word "covenant", which, although is not a Scottish legal word, has a definite meaning which is clear and can be understood but cannot in any sense be translated as "agreement or stipulation."

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment No. 34: In page 29, line 4, at end insert:
'agricultural holding' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment concerns a point originally put by the right hon. Member


for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne). It is simple in form but complicated in background. It refers really to Clause 32, which defines the protected tenancies which are not to have basic protection. All other examples of protected tenancies are linked to a statute but the agricultural equivalents reads
… a tenancy of an agricultural holding in England and Wales;
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe thought that this might lead to confusion because people would not know immediately which agricultural tenancies were protected and which were not. There seemed to be weight in that view and therefore, as we did not want the courts to feel that, as there was no reference to a Statute, it must have some other significance, we are taking his advice and propose to link agricultural holdings with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. The effect is that protected tenancies will be those which are protected under that Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)

Lords Amendment No. 35: In page 31, line 22, after "22" insert:
(restriction on re-entry without due process of law)".

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As in the previous case, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), the Government have taken the advice of the Scottish Law Officers who, for the moment, do not have seats in this House but no doubt will win them in by-elections.
This Amendment provides that the new Clause entitled
(Restriction on re-entry without due process of law)
shall not apply to Scotland. This is because it is not required in Scotland. It is already the law there that any right of re-entry or forfeiture can be enforced only after reference to the courts. I hope that on this occasion, as the innocent transporter of information from the Lord Advocate to the House, I shall receive the assent of hon. Members when I say that that is the case.

Mr. Hendry: With very great deference to the hon. Gentleman, we should like to see the Law Officers here to question them about these matters, for here again we are in considerable difficulty. In fact, there are two difficulties with this Amendment. The first is that the hon. Gentleman has still not answered my comment about the case, which I brought to his attention earlier, of the Scotsman who about 200 years ago was thrown out by his master by the scruff of his neck, an action which the Court of Session found perfectly legal. That decision has never been reversed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the advice about that case which he has received from the Lord Advocate.
The second difficulty is that a lease which contains consent to registration for preservation and execution may be recorded in the books of Council in Session and an extract from the books of Council in Session can be acted upon without any specific reference to the courts. For the guidance of the legal profession in Scotland, would the Under-Secretary tell the House whether such a lease will continue to be effective for the purpose of regaining possession without any special reference to the courts? It seems to me that the insertion of these words would have the effect of making such a lease effective. Is that the intention of the Government?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: By leave of the House; the intention of the Government is not to upset what, until the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention, had always been considered to be the case in Scotland for the last 400 years. I will willingly write to the hon. Gentleman explaining in full the researches which we carried out at length on the famous case of the coachman, a case which he raised in Committee and which occasioned a great deal of research, not only in my Department, but in that of the Lord Advocate. A full report was submitted, but I did not want to trouble the Committee with it at the time. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will write to him in full not only about the point he has made on this Amendment and his question in that context, but on the previous matter. I also give him the assurance that it will not be in confidence so that he can willingly use


it in the Scots Law Times, or any other vehicle of publication which he believes to be correct in the circumstances.
I assure him genuinely that we have taken advice about this matter from the Law Officers and that they are fully cognisant of the problems which he has raised. I assure the House that we ought to agree to this Lords Amendment, because the law of Scotland as at present ought not to be disturbed any more.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1.—(AMENDMENT OF THE RENT ACTS IN RELATION TO REGULATED TENANCIES.)

Lords Amendment No. 36: In page 33, line 31, leave out paragraph 11.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I think that with this it would be convenient to take the Lords Amendment to Schedule 6.

Mr. MacColl: As you rightly point out, Mr. Speaker, this is a paving Amendment to the Amendment to Schedule 6 and in form what it says is that in Sections 10 and 11 of the 1933 Rent Act references to the principal Act shall be deemed to be references to what will be this Act. Section 10 deals with the publishing of information and the enforcement of such rights or the securing of performance of duties under the Act. Section 11 provides that the councils of county boroughs and county districts shall have power to institute proceedings for any offence. Under the Bill at present, those powers can be linked only with Parts I and II dealing with regulated tenancies. The Amendment would provide to link them with Parts III and IV dealing with harassment and miscellaneous matters.
There is a general power in Section 276 of the Local Government Act, 1933 for taking legal proceedings, and it is probably correct to say that that is enough authority for a council to take proceedings. On the other hand, we do not want any doubt about this. We want the local councils to take very seriously indeed their responsibility in taking proceedings under the new Act. Therefore, we think that it would probably be wiser to link specifically the other

parts of the Bill to Sections 10 and 11, and that is what these Amendments do.

Mr. Graham Page: I think that I understand the position, that, as the Bill was originally drafted, this applied only to the alterations to the Rent Act, as they would apply to regulated tenancies. It is now desired that local authorities shall have the power to issue information, and to prosecute for any offence under the present Bill.
That means that they would have the power, under Part III, I assume, to take proceedings for harassment and to take proceedings in the case of any other offence under Part III. I assume that the local authority would have the power to take proceedings in connection with any offence in relation to rent officers and rent assessment committees. I cannot for the moment, put my finger on any particular offence occurring in the Schedules to the Bill, but there is the point that if there is an offence in connection with a scheme of regulation, it is the clerk to the local authority who is charged, and not the local authority itself. Should it not be the individual clerk who is in charge of the scheme who has this power instead of the general power given to a local authority to take action under the Sections of the Rent Act, which are introduced in this Amendment?

Mr. MacColl: This power is a very general power to take proceedings. There are very wide powers under the 1933 Act for protecting inhabitants of the area, and they are probably sufficient. I am in the same difficulty as the hon. Gentleman in that I cannot quickly think of any offence in which it would be necessary for the clerk to take proceedings. Therefore, I would take the advice of my right hon. Friend and not make the attempt to improvise.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3.—(REGISTRATION OF RENTS).

Lords Amendment No. 37: In page 37, line 11, after "he" insert "or a rent assessment committee".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that we are taking with this Amendment Lords Amendments Nos. 38 to 45.

Mr. MacColl: This matter looks extremely complicated, but it is not as bad as it looks. It deals with a point which has been discussed earlier, that of getting references to the rent assessment committee if they are out of time. The point has been raised that if the rent officer's decisions begin to look irregular someone might want to make a reference to the rent assessment committee after the statutory period had passed.
The rent officer has power to refer matters to the rent assessment committee and he can allow objections out of time. That still leaves one with the problem that if the rent officer unwisely is being "sticky" and says that he does not want to refer matters to the rent assessment committee, there should be some means of enabling an application to be made to the committee, rather like leave to appeal to a higher court.
This question was discussed in Amendments put down in Committee and these Amendments are the result of our cogitations. The effect is that, first, the rent officer has the power to make the reference, but if he fails to do so then he must pass on the request to the rent assessment committee. The main reason why this sounds difficult is that there is no appeal to the rent assessment committee as an appellate body; it is a reference by the rent officer to the rent assessment committee. That is why it has to be done in this complicated way. The intention is to ensure that both landlords and tenants who are out of time are able to go to the rent assessment committee and get permission for their case to be looked at again.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Allason: We have had a rather different explanation of the reason for these Amendments than that given by the Government spokesman in another place, when he said that the intention of the Amendments was to meet the criticism of the Opposition as regards timing. On this occasion, we have had an entirely different explanation, and perhaps a somewhat more satisfactory one, because I regarded the explanation as regards timing as extremely odd. All that we are doing here as regards timing is changing the referee and not giving any extension of time.
If it is a matter of meeting the criticism of the Opposition, I wonder whether the

Government would be prepared to leave it to the Opposition and take their decision about whether this is a valuable series of Amendments. They seem to me to have considerably different effects to those described by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He has spoken about the occasion when an appeal out of time is necessary because the rent assessment committees are now giving considerably different decisions to the earlier decisions that were given immediately after the process had been introduced.
Surely, a rent officer would not himself reject these appeals. He would be a most conscientious person and it is unlikely that he would reject them. It is much more likely that the type of case which a rent officer rejects is one which has no merit and in which the rent has been long decided and then, many months later, the landlord or tenant says, "I am rather fed up with that decision. I think that I ought to have a bash at changing it", entirely forgetting that it should last for three years. Twelve months afterwards, perhaps somebody comes forward and says that he would like to appeal out of time, and the rent officer might say, "Do not be ridiculous. You are not entitled to be so far out of time as this."
Under the Amendment, the rent officer may no longer exercise his judgment. He is now forced to go to the rent assessment committee and place all the facts before it. Therefore, on every occasion when, under the original terms of the Bill, the rent officer would have refused that permission, he must now submit a full report to the rent assessment committee. That committee will have to go carefully into a case of which it knows absolutely nothing, get itself fully informed on it and judge whether the rent officer has been reasonable. In such circumstances, the result is only to pile more work on the rent assessment committees. We are already worried that they will be overloaded.
Therefore, if the test is whether to trust a rent officer or to pile more work upon the rent assessment committees because the rent officer cannot be trusted, perhaps the Government should consider the appointment of the rent officer and whether he is a good person. I believe that rent officers will be good people and can be trusted and that it will be


unnecessary, therefore, to provide this extra appeal to the rent assessment committees. I speak entirely for myself in saying that I do not think that rent officers are likely to be unreasonable and that, therefore, these Amendments are unnecessary.

Mr. MacColl: By leave of the House I would just say that what the hon. Gentleman has just said may well be true, but it is the price of seeing that justice is appearing to be done. There might be a rent officer who stands on his dignity and does not like a reference made and tries to discourage it. We feel that the rent assessment committee should have a comprehensive survey of the position, to get a balance between the rents. Therefore, it should not be handicapped. It is perfectly true that if there were a lack of confidence in the rent officer it might lead to frivolous applications, but we cannot do the two things—have freedom of access to the rent assessment committee and at the same time not run the risk of frivolous applications. On balance, we think this is worth doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 7.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendment No. 48: In page 46, line 26, column 3, at end insert "Section 13(2)."

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think it would be convenient to consider with this one the next Lords Amendment, in page 46, line 41, after "6" insert:
in paragraph 8(3) the words 'or subsection (3)'".
The two Lords Amendments deal with consequential changes resulting from changes which were made in the Bill in this House when Section 11(3) of the 1957 Act was repealed. The first repeals Section 13(2) which deals with premiums. The second deletes the reference to Section 11(3) in the Sixth Schedule. They are consequential drafting Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 50: In page 46, line 45, at end insert:


"1964 c. 56.
The-Housing Act 1964.
In section 72, subsection (3), in subsection (4) the words 'and (3)', subsections (5)' and (6); and, in paragraph (d) of subsection (7), the words '(3)' the words 'and (5)', the words from '(3) Subject' to 'both' and the words 'and (3)'"

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment of the Housing Act, 1964, as a result of this Bill, because Section 72 of that Act made it a criminal offence for a landlord to evict a tenant without a court order where the local authority had tried to get a C.P.O. These points are covered in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 51: In page 47, leave out lines 42 and 43.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, and the last Lords Amendment, in page 47, line 51, at end add:


"1965 c. 59.
The New Towns Act 1965.
Section 22(4)."


which it would be convenient to discuss at the same time, are references to consolidation. There is now the New Towns Act, 1965, and they are consequential on that legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Richard Crossman, Dr. Dickson Mabon, Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes, and Mrs. Margaret Thatcher; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Crossman.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; To be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. George Rogers.]

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to draw the attention of the House to the plight of the owner-occupiers of small dwellings whose homes are in clearance areas and who are now threatened with compulsory purchase orders—their plight because of the advice given by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to local authorities in this connection.
I said those "who are now threatened with compulsory purchase" but "purchase" in this connection is rather a euphemistic word for confiscation of a building without compensation. It has long been the law, now consolidated in the Housing Act of 1957, Section 59, that compensation for a house in a clearance area is no more than the site value of the house, the value of the land as a site cleared of buildings.
There are many houses in clearance areas which are not worth the cost of demolition and the clearing away of the rubble, but, on the other hand, there are those with many more years of life as decent dwellings but which are condemned because they do not come up to the standard of statutory fitness laid down in Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957. Very stringent standards of fitness are laid down by that section.
When the first full-scale slum clearance drive in British history was started by a Conservative Government in the 'thirties, the then Government relieved the hardship resulting from those confiscatory provisions by instituting special payments for dwellings which had been well maintained.
In that first slum clearance drive, when about 1½ million people were rehoused between 1933 and 1939, the Conservative Government were dealing with some really bad slum conditions. The vast majority of houses which were demolished in those days were tenanted houses and in bad condition. The owner-occupier was a rare bird in those areas of slum clearance of the 'thirties. But times change, and by the time we reached

1954, when another Conservative Government started the second full-scale slum clearance drive in British history, high standards prevailed, and clearance orders were applied to properties which previously would not have been called slums.
The important point is that during and after the war many people had bought homes for themselves in these areas, small houses in the old urban areas, perhaps to replace homes from which they had been bombed out during the war, or perhaps to set up home after the war with the gratuity which a man received on his release from the Services.
Many of those were purchased in the old urban areas which were ripe for clearance and redevelopment. On them the general law of confiscation of bricks and mortar, if the property was in a clearance area, fell extremely harshly, particularly on the owner-occupier who had, for example, mortgaged his house and then found it taken away from him at site value, which might well be about one-twentieth of the real value of the house. He was left, then, to pay for the mortgage, while at the same time having to find himself another house and pay for it either by mortgage payments or rent.
With the rehousing from slum property of somewhere about 60,000 people in 1954, planned to rise to 200,000 people per annum by 1958, in that slum clearance drive under a Conservative Government in the 1950s, compensation hardship cases became a real problem. There was a Mr. Pilgrim who, having his property taken away from him, in a state of frustration and depression committed suicide. The Conservative Government introduced in 1955 a Bill to relieve that kind of hardship. It became the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956, which is now embodied in Section 61 and the Second Schedule, Part II, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Housing Act, 1957.
That Act did two things. First, it improved the well-maintained payments introduced back in the 1930s. Secondly, it gave full compensation to those who had purchased their houses during the 1939 to 1955 period. But those people who had purchased dwelling-houses during that period, in order to obtain the benefit of full compensation, even though


they found that their houses were in slum clearance areas, were obliged to show that they were occupying their houses on the 13th December, 1955, that they bought them on or after 1st September, 1939, and before 13th December, 1955, and that at the time that they were compulsorily purchased they were occupied still by the persons who had purchased them or members of their families, and that they had been compulsorily purchased from them before 13th December, 1965, which is a date now only six weeks ahead. So, those people who were given the benefit of full market value compensation because they purchased them between 1939 and 1955, will—if their houses are taken away from them—lose that right unless the purchases take place before 13th December next. That, as I say, is only six weeks ahead.
I must admit that the words used in the particular paragraph of the 1957 Housing Act, "has been purchased" were rather vague and ambiguous. It was right to make the legislation temporary for a matter of ten years, with the intention of reviewing it; it was, after all, passed for special relief to wartime and post-war buyers. The rather general phrase, "has been purchased", would not have been immaterial if the Government had made a statement of future policy in good time before 13th December, 1965. Who, after all, could have imagined when drafting a Bill in 1955, that any Government would be so crazy in 1964–65 as to run the period of the Act right up to the eleventh hour without any statement at all of future policy? I use the word "crazy", but, not only that; I would say thoughtless and careless about all concerned.
Those faced with a compulsory purchase order, their houses being in a slum clearance area, form one section of the problem, but there are also the problems of the local authorities in carrying out their slum clearance duties and their duties to their ratepayers generally. There must be thousands of properties subject at this moment to compulsory purchase orders and for which negotiations are going on about the price at which the properties are to be purchased. These are properties occupied by owners who purchased in the 1939–1955 period and who will get compensation for the "purchase" if it is made by the acquiring

authority before 13th December, 1965. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that if the purchase is not made before that date, the owner will get only site value and perhaps a "well maintained" payment; but that can amount only to a tenth, or even a twentieth, of the proper market value of the property.
What action before 13th December will earn an owner full compensation? Is the property which is compulsorily purchased under these circumstances said to be "purchased" on the date of the compulsory purchase order? On the date of confirmation of the order, or the date of the service of notice to treat? On the date of an informal agreement for sale contained in correspondence, on formal exchange of contracts, or at the time of the agreement of the price or compensation figure, or on completion of the transaction by transfer or conveyance?
Any of these occasions could be the point at which the property could be said to have been "purchased" and because of this problem of what is to be the accepted date of purchase, some local authorities have asked for the guidance and advice of the Minister. In his reply, the Minister has said that it means the date on which compensation is agreed between the parties or, in the event of a dispute, which is fixed by the Lands Tribunal. Well, we can write off the latter part of that advice because nobody can possibly get a Lands Tribunal decision in the next six weeks.
So, the Minister has said, in effect, that the date is that when the compensation price is agreed between the parties. I must say that I exclude from my complaint those who purchased less than 15 years before the compulsory purchase order relating to their property, because last week the Minister made special mention of those people. That leaves, however, all those for whom the Conservative Act of 1956 was intended to provide relief; that is, those who purchased during the war and the immediate postwar years. They are to be put in an extremely difficult position by this advice of the Minister because what can be more disastrous to them than this ruling, that "purchase" means "when the price is agreed"? It must be remembered that it takes two to make an agreement. What incentive has one side, the acquiring authority, to agree to the price at all


when, if it holds out until 13th December, it can get the property at, perhaps, one-tenth to one-twentieth of the price it would have to pay if it agreed that price now?
I want to make it clear that any local government officer who spins out negotiations in these circumstances is acting quite property. It is his duty to his council and to the general body of ratepayers that he should obtain the property at as low a price as possible, and if he carries on his negotiations so as to get the property after 13th December at site value, instead of agreeing the price now and paying out full compensation value, he is doing his duty. I do not complain about that at all. I do complain about the interpretation which the Minister has placed on the word "purchased", thereby encouraging local authorities to take this course of delaying the agreement of price until after 13th December.
An owner-occupier in these circumstances is forced to accept whatever the local authority may now offer. What could be more unfair than that—or more completely wrong? I use the word "wrong", because I think that the Minister's interpretation of the word "purchased" is wrong. A compulsory purchase order is first made by the local authority. It is then confirmed by the Minister, and, under the Fourth Schedule to the 1957 Housing Act, it becomes operative six weeks after confirmation. That, surely, is the date of purchase. This is a purchase by order. Surely the date when the order comes into operation is the date of purchase. Moreover, if that were the right interpretation of the word "purchased" in the 1956 Act, it is a date that is uncontrolled by those negotiating over the price.
Let me assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we are not here dealing with "wicked wealthy land owners" but with the owner-occupiers of little dwellings in the range of £400 to £1,200. The sort of case now under negotiation of which I have examples is the house which the owner-occupier values at £1,000; the local authority, with a compulsory purchase order at its back, offers £500. The site value, even with the well-maintained payment, is only £100. As 13th December approaches, how can the owner-occupier keep on pressing for that

£1,000 which he thinks his property is worth? He will have to agree to the £500; he will get no more than £100 if he does not so agree before 13th December.
If the Minister does not withdraw the advice he has given to local authorities that "purchase" means price agreement and say that "purchase" means the operative date of the compulsory purchase order, I should not be surprised in the least to hear of another Pilgrim suicide over frustration and disappointment in having property taken away at site value. I am sure that the Minister would not be happy to have another Pilgrim case on his conscience.

1.43 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I know that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has strong and by no means universally held views on the subject of compensation for slum clearance. When, earlier in the Session, we debated a Private Member's Bill to extended market value compensation, he spoke with vigour and, indeed, claimed some share in the parentage of that Bill. It was clear as the debate went on that in this matter the hon. Gentleman did not altogether have the agreement of his hon. Friends, and I think that many hon. Members opposite saw rather more clearly than he did some of the difficulties that arise over this question. We are in a particular difficulty at the moment in discussing it because we are on the Adjournment and cannot go into a disquisition on possible legislative changes. In a way, that is a pity because I am being scolded for the drafting of a Bill for which I did not have any responsibility.
The question of the meaning of the word "purchase" is not one of policy but one of legal meaning. The hon. Member knows that it can be tested in the courts if the Minister's advice is wrong. When he gave that advice, my right hon. Friend was trying to be helpful because local authorities wrote to him and were concerned about what would happen if houses affected by current orders were not purchased before the present Act expires. One interpretation was to say that one did not need


to wait for formal completion of purchase but put forward the date and not postpone it. I think it was clear from the Answer to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) that in future it is proposed that the date will be when a house is included in an order, which I think is a more liberal and humane way of tackling the problem than the present arrangements.

Mr. Graham Page: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that it will refer not only to properties mentioned in that Answer, but generally to properties about which I have been speaking? Is the purchase after the date of the compulsory purchase order?

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member is getting too far, because he is trying to cross-examine me about what is to be the legislation in the new Session and that it would be quite improper for me to discuss. It is a matter we can look at on Second Reading of a new Bill in the next Session.
I think there will be provision for mortgage relief in cases where people are in difficulties and they will be able to apply to the court for help. At the moment we are at the end of an experiment with the present legislation, which I agree produced anomalies but, as was clear from the debate we had, they were anomalies inherent in the whole problem. Once we start defining a particular collection of people to be helped by giving them market value we shall get into difficulties because that does not meet other people's problems. It is not an easy problem to tackle.
Another point which came out of the debate was the effect on slum clearance and the problem of bringing into slum clearance areas owner-occupied property which seemed to be in tolerably good condition. The Central Housing Advisory Committee has a sub-committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Denington, Chairman of the Housing Committee of the Greater London Council, which is looking at this problem of standards of housing fitness. I know something of what that sub-committee is doing and it is getting on with its inquiry. Although I do not

know when it will produce a final report, I hope that what it contains about standardised tests for fitness will be helpful and have implications on the question of compensation.
There are provisions whereby local authorities can make ex gratia payments in cases of particular hardship or where decisions of local authorities caused people to buy properties they would not otherwise have bought. In those cases my right hon. Friend encourages local authorities to interpret their powers liberally in order to meet cases of particularly severe hardship.

Mr. Graham Page: May I press the hon. Member on this point? I am not pressing him to say anything about legislation. The Minister said in his letter that the words "has been purchased" should be interpreted to mean the time the price is agreed. He has now said, replying about another batch of property, that the date should be the date at which it is included in the compulsory purchase order. Will not the Minister say in respect of property now affected by this date, 13th December, that "purchase" means the date that that property was included in the compulsory purchase order and not the date when the price was fixed?

Mr. MacColl: That is the difficulty, because in order to do what the hon. Member wants him to do, the Minister has to introduce legislation, and that is what he proposes to do. What the hon. Member is asking him to do is to interpret the present Statute in a way which suits the hon. Member but which may not be the right interpretation. I do not think that the Minister can do that. Certainly I will draw his attention to the particular problem which the hon. Member has raised about property which may not continue to be covered and see whether it is possible to make any changes, but these would have to be legislative changes, because my hon. Friend's advice is based on what he and his advisers think is the meaning of the Statute.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Two o'clock.